Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ROYAL, COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF GLASGOW ORDER CONFIRMATION

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to the Royal College of Physician and Surgeons of Glasgow, presented by Mr. Noble (under Section 7 of the Act); and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 38.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

British Limbless Ex-Service Men's Association

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the Scottish branches of the British Limbless ex-Service Men's Association has made a united effort to build a further necessary home at Crieff in Perthshire to accommodate forty-four severely injured ex-Service men at a cost of £85,000, in addition to the 28,000 surviving limbless ex-Service men already provided for by the Association; and what help in money and otherwise he plans to give the Association in its work.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): Yes, Sir. I have no power to help financially, but I should be very glad to consider any request from the Association for any other help it thinks I may be able to give it.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State realise that this is a case in which he would be justified in bringing in a special Bill, especially having regard to the fact that he brings in so

many little Bills about fiddle-faddles which are not urgent? Having regard to the noble work which this Association does on behalf of the men to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude for our safety, our liberty and the protection of democracy, will he consider the matter from that aspect?

Mr. Noble: I have great sympathy with the hon. and learned Member in the last part of his supplementary question, but I have no powers and this is not a matter entirely for me.

Mr. Lawson: Is it not a reflection on our society that it is necessary to look for charitable aid for men who are so severely disabled in the service of their country? Is it not a shame that we cannot find ways whereby as of right these men are cared for?

Mr. Noble: The Association has already built two of these institutions in England and has not asked for any financial help. I have had no direct approach from the Association for this purpose.

Mr. Hoy: If the right hon. Gentleman says that the Association has not asked for financial help and that even if it did he has no power to give it, is it his intention to take steps to make it possible for him to provide aid?

Mr. Noble: No, Sir. Not until the need is clearly established and then, as I have said, it is not entirely for me.

Industrial Development, Kirkintilloch

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage the building of an industrial estate in the Kirkintilloch, Croy and Twechar area.

Mr. Noble: I have approved the Kirkintilloch Town Development Scheme under which the town council is developing two industrial sites. The industrial facilities provided at Cumbernauld New Town are also within reach of the area.

Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware 'that Dr. Hugh Gilles, the Convener of Dunbartonshire County Council, informed us that unemployment in the county is 6·8 per cent. and is


rising, and that the loss of jobs in the county is not being offset by new jobs? Therefore, in view of the new town and the overspill agreement of Kirkinitilloch with Glasgow, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the construction of a further industrial estate in this area and the building of advance factories?

Mr. Noble: The question of industrial estates and advance factories is one for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, not for me.

Road Transport Services

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he is making to ensure adequate road transport facilities in areas at present and in the future not served by rail.

Mr. Noble: The provision of road transport services in areas at present not served by rail is primarily a matter for the road transport industry, but the road programme is steadily improving the roads they use. As regards possible future railway closures, we must first await the outcome of the studies being undertaken by the British Transport Commission.

Mr. Bence: Will the right hon. Gentleman use all the influence and power he has, if he has any power, to prevent any rail closures until such time as we can be assured that we are not to have parts of Scotland cut off through roads being blocked by excessive snowfalls such as those we have had in the last few weeks?

Mr. Noble: I should hate to be responsible for the snowfall, but I think the hon. Member was in the House when I gave the assurance to the House that these closures should not take place unless there are adequate facilities for passengers and freight services.

Mr. Manuel: Will the right hon. Gentleman definitely promise the House that upon the reception by the Minister of Transport of Dr. Beeching's economic reappraisal, if it means rail closures in certain parts of Scotland that have roads with passing places only, he will fight within the Cabinet and against the Minister of Transport to see that there shall be no further depopulation of these areas because of the complete severence of transport?

Mr. Noble: I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is in the least keen to encourage the depopulation of the Highlands and add to the congestion already existing in the South.

Mr. Woodburn: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that by denationalising road transport to a large extent he took away one of the possible solutions of this problem by which the British Transport Commission would have had the responsibility of supplying transport and deciding according to circumstances which was the better form?

Mr. Noble: The right hon. Gentleman is not entirely correct, because the Minister of Transport, in approving a closure, has powers to instruct the Commission to run bus services to avoid hardship arising.

Disabled Children (Treatment and Training)

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland which hospital in Scotland has special facilities for the treatment and training of children severely disabled by thalidomide.

Mr. Noble: Special provision for children with limb defects is being made at the Princess Margaret Rose Hospital, Edinburgh, and Mearnskirk Hospital, Renfrewshire. The fitting of artificial limbs and the training in their use, will be done in association with surgeons from limb-fitting centres. The smaller number of children who suffer from other varying kinds of disablement will be treated at the hospitals best able to deal with their particular condition.

Miss Herbison: The Secretary of State said that this provision is being made. Is he not aware that the parents of these children who have been seriously disabled are very worried indeed? Until this provision is made would he give some consideration to these Scottish children, who have suffered because of their mothers taking thalidomide, being treated at the Chailey Heritage Craft School and Hospital where they have had sixty years' experience of dealing with very disabled children? Is not the Secretary of State aware that we have nothing comparable in Scotland to this craft school and hospital in the south of England?

Mr. Noble: I shall certainly take note of what the hon. Lady suggests. But it is important also to parents that we should press ahead as fast as we can to help with provision in Scotland.

Rheumatic Diseases (Treatment and Research Centre)

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the centre for the treament of and research into rheumatic diseases will be in operation in Glasgow.

Mr. Noble: It is expected that the work of reconstructing Baird Street Hospital for this purpose will be completed in the autumn of 1964.

Miss Herbison: Should not the Secretary of State urge that this hospital should be completed this year? Is he not aware that it is since 1957 that the Western Regional Hospital Board has known about the need for this and that the Board, which caters for over half the population in Scotland in health matters, has no such centre at all in an area where the incidence of all types of rheumatism is very high?

Mr. Noble: I agree with the hon. Lady that we want to get this operating as soon as possible and there has been some delay in the past. After looking round, it was found that there was no obvious alternative but to try to convert existing buildings, and this has been a difficult and slow process.

Miss Herbison: Is it not a very considerable time ago that it was decided that the Baird Street clinic in Glasgow should be used? What has caused the delay since the decision to use it?

Mr. Noble: I am only aware of the difficulties of which I have been told, which is that a very large number of structural alterations are being made within the existing hospital.

Farmers (Drugs for Veterinary Purposes)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary State for Scotland if, in view of the discontent among Scottish farmers about the charges made to them in respect of drugs for veterinary purposes, he will introduce legislation to bring about a reduction.

Mr. Noble: I am not aware of any general discontent among Scottish farmers about the charges made to them for drugs for veterinary purposes, and I see no grounds for considering the introduction of legislation in this matter.

Mr. Hughes: Where does the Minister live these days?—[HON. MEMBERS: Argyll.]—He is a well-known farmer. Is he not aware of the opinion of Mr. William Young, a former Tory Vice-Convener of the Ayrshire County Council, who has said publicly that these charges are high and utterly ridiculous? Is he going to let the farmers be exploited by the drug people?

Mr. Noble: Owing to the activities of the hon. Gentleman and many of his friends, I do not spend as much time in Argyll as I should like to. If Mr. William Young wishes to raise this point, he should take it up with the British Veterinary Association, whose responsibility it is.

Ploughing Grants

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for ploughing grant were disallowed for lateness although received before the closing date of the 1961–62 scheme; and what total sum was thereby lost to the applicants.

Mr. Noble: Applications received before the closing date are not disallowed for lateness, but my hon. Friend is no doubt referring to the applications disallowed because notice of ploughing was not given within twenty-one days of completion as required by the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme 1961. There were 1,111 applications refused on this account and the sum involved was £82,550.

Mr. Brewis: Can my right hon. Friend say what inconvenience is caused to his Department if applications are received before the closing date of the scheme, although not within twenty-one days of the end of ploughing? Can he also say whether the applications which are rejected will be void far all purposes?

Mr. Noble: It is not a question of whether it is inconvenient. The payment of these grants outside the requirements


of the scheme as laid down by Parliament is extra-statutory and, therefore, I have no say in it. On the second point, once the grant has been disallowed, it is disallowed for all time.

Mr. Stodart: Is my hon. Friend aware that it these grants are to be considered worth while to farmers, as indeed they are, the least farmers can do is to obey the rules set down?

Mr. Noble: I agree with my hon. Friend and a very large number of farmers did so. It is only 3 per cent. who failed.

Crofts, Caithness (Tenants)

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, why, in his capacity as landlord of crofts in Caithness, he is rejecting farm workers as tenants While men of means are accepted without competition.

Mr. Noble: As a landlord, I do not reject farm workers as tenants. I try to select the most suitable and deserving applicant in each case.

Sir D. Robertson: It would be interesting to know if any farm worker in Caithness has received the tenancy of a croft owned by the Department of Agriculture. Is it not well known that the sole reason that these experienced and skilful men are unable to get land to work on their own account is that crofts are being sold for cash, and is not that fact admitted by the Crofters' Commission?

Mr. Noble: I can only tell my hon. Friend what has happened to the crofts within my own responsibility. In the last six years, six have been re-let by my Department of which three were let to crofters, one to a crofter's son, one to a farmer's son and one to a small farmer seeking a larger place.

Mr. John MacLeod: Can my right hon. Friend say for what sums they were sold and whether the land was separated from the house in any of these instances?

Mr. Noble: That is a different question, but I shall try to give my hon. Friend the answer if he will put it down.

General Grants

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has

for altering the existing formula for apportionment to local authorities of the aggregate amount of general grants.

Mr. Noble: If the provisions in the Bill, which no doubt the hon. Member has in mind, become law, I expect from time to time to invite Parliament to approve proposals for amending the formula for distributing the aggregate amount of general grant.

Mr. Willis: In view of the fact that it is generally understood that the right hon. Gentleman already knows the changes that he wants to make in the method of distributing this general grant, does he not think that it would be fair to Scottish Members to place these before the House before we pass this part of the Bill?

Mr. Noble: No, Sir. I do not think that it is fair to say that I know what changes are likely to be made, because these are subject of discussion between the working parties and the local authorities and they still continue.

Trunk and Classified Roads (Grants)

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Scottish local authority associations concerning the payment of grants in respect of trunk and classified roads in cities and large burghs; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Noble: None recently, Sir.

Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many local authorities are increasingly concerned at the very heavy financial burdens that are now falling upon them in connection with road works, burdens which they feel ought to be borne by the State, and is it not time that the Government really examined the questions of scheduling roads, classification and grants?

Mr. Noble: I am aware of this feeling and I appreciate the problem. It is being kept in mind in the consideration which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and I are now giving to the Seventh Report of the Estimates Committee on Classified Roads.

Mr. Hoy: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise what an intolerable burden


this is placing on local ratepayers, and that in connection with the new Forth Road Bridge the City of Edinburgh, as one example, is having to face tremendous expenditure on road works to meet this new situation? Is it not unfair that any local authority should have to carry this burden on its own? The Government must soon make up their mind that they will accept some responsibility for it.

Mr. Noble: I am aware of the feeling in Edinburgh. I hope that when the road approaches are open it will not mean that all traffic will pass straight through Edinburgh. Edinburgh will obviously get a great deal of traffic movement into it. But it is because this is a very wide problem and not confined to Edinburgh that it should be looked at in the context of the whole country.

Pier, Lochinver

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the pier at Lochinver will be extended to meet the needs of the growing fishing industry which is now handicapped for lack of berths and working space; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Noble: Sutherland County Council asked in July about the possibility of grant being given for the extension of this pier. It has been informed of the considerations which have to be taken into account in this matter, and no detailed scheme has yet been submitted.

Sir D. Robertson: This pier has been heavily congested for several years, long before last July, and that fact should have been apparent to the Department's officers, just as it has been to me and those who frequent this very important place, where a new and growing industry has been built up. For the first time for over a century we have native boats going to the fisheries. Will my right hon. Friend see without further delay that something is done to bring this scheme to fruition?

Mr. Noble: I rejoice with my hon. Friend that there are some local boats fishing from that area and that the number is increasing. But, in the first place, it is the task of local authorities to bring to the Scottish Department their request as to which piers need doing first. July was the first time that Sutherland

County Council brought it to my attention. I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no delay as far as my Department is concerned when their proposals are received.

Air Raid Shelter, Castle Douglas

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now authorise the demolition of the air raid shelter at Oakwell Crescent, Castle Douglas.

Mr. Noble: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May we take it that the Minister believes that these air raid shelters in this part of the west of Scotland are no longer of any use?

Mr. Noble: No, Sir.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that repeatedly I have raised with the Secretary of State for Scotland the desirability of removing a great many of these disreputable shelters in my division, may I be assured by him that if I now request their removal, he will see that they are taken away?

Mr. Noble: I cannot give the hon. Member that assurance. The reasons for removing them are either that they are structurally unsound or on public health mounds.

Forth Road Bridge

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated time required to complete the Forth Road Bridge and its approach roads.

Mr. Noble: I understand that, given reasonable weather this winter, the contractors expect the bridge to be open to traffic towards the end of 1963.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to the travelling public it is a bit of a puzzle to understand exactly how all these approach roads will fit in? As I expect that he has a model which shows this vary interesting solution of the complicated approaches, will he arrange for this model to be available in the Royal Scottish Academy or the National Gallery so that the people of Edinburgh may see exactly what is happening?

Mr. Noble: I will look into the possibility of alerting people in Scotland as to the exact development of these approach roads.

Areas of Scenic Beauty (Telegraph and Electricity Lines)

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking under Section 96 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, to ensure the removal of unsightly telegraph and electricity lines from areas of scenic beauty in Scotland.

Mr. Noble: My prior consent is required for the erection of electricity lines, and amenity considerations are carefully weighed before consent is granted. I have not hitherto had representations about telegraph lines, which are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, the Postmaster-General, and are not subject to the provision which my hon. Friend mentions.

Mr. Cooke: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply to the spirit rather than to the imprecise letters of the Question, may I take it that he will continue to try to preserve and improve the Highlands for the benefit of the English as well as of the Scots? Has he considered the use of poles, with a variety of contrasting colours, which would merge with the landscape?

Mr. Noble: I am not certain whether the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has considered multi-coloured poles, but I am certain that if they are likely to be successful, my hon. Friend's Question will have brought it to their attention.

Mr. John MacLeod: While my hon. Friend may think that there might be something in the Question, will he ensure that this is not done before the people concerned get electricity?

White Fish Authority (Grants and Loans)

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the payments due to the White Fish Authority under the Grants and Loans Scheme were not paid on the date they were due.

Mr. Noble: This information is not readily available. But the cumulative

arrears of payments due to the authority at 31st October expressed as a proportion of the sums due on 31st March and 30th September was 27 per cent.

Mr. Hoy: The right hon. Gentleman apparently finds it difficult to get these figures. If he cannot find them, I can assure him that I have been told by those in the Authority that it amounts to not less than 50 per cent. In any case, it shows that the industry is getting into a very serious plight. What steps does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take to look into the matter and to see what can he done to help the Scottish fishing industry?

Mr. Noble: I am due an apology to the hon. Gentleman, because the figure of 49·8 per cent. which was given to him was given to him in error. It is a very complicated calculation, but it was given as a percentage on sums owing at 30th September. In fact it should have been on sums owing on 30th March and 30th September, because most of the money was due then. I agree with him that it shows a serious position, but I cannot add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) on 7th November.

Lady Tweedsmuir: What representations has my right hon. Friend had on the subject of the moratorium since we had the debate about fishing subsidies in July? Will he confirm that the figures of fishing losses are deteriorating? Is he considering extending the moratorium for a further period beyond a year?

Mr. Noble: As I told the House was likely a fortnight ago, I have had the advantage of a discussion with the Chairman of the Scottish White Fish Authority. I think that it has been useful in clearing up his problems and mine.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the mix-up in the Minister's Department, which he has just disclosed, not indicate that it is time that he consulted practical men in the business, such as trawler owners, fish merchants, fishermen and others, who know the industry, instead of relying on amateurs who know nothing about it?

Mr. Noble: I regret to have to inform the hon and learned Gentleman that the mix-up of the figures was not in my Department.

Lady Iweedsmuir: Will my right hon. Friend kindly answer my original question as to whether he has received any representations from the Scottish trawler owners since July?

Mr. Noble: I have not.

Herring

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that in recent weeks herring have appeared once more in sizeable quantities both off East Anglia and in the Minch; and whether he will publish charts for the last five years setting out clearly the changes in the number and location of the herring caught.

Mr. Noble: Large quantities of herring have been caught recently in the Minch but except for a very short period catches off East Anglia have been disappointing. For the last five years charts of the herring catches off the north east of Scotland have been made available to fishermen in the Scottish Fisheries Bulletin. The preparation of similar charts for the Minch is under consideration. As regards East Anglia this is a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that this is a matter on which as much information as possible is needed? Bearing in mind that the Buchan fisheries have been defunct for the second year in succession and that herring in the East Anglian fisheries season have been exceedingly scarce, we seem to be in danger of destroying the natural resources possibly for lack of information about what is happening. Will he do all that he can to make that information available?

Mr. Noble: We do all that we can to obtain information on fisheries subjects and to distribute it to the fishermen as soon as it is available.

Forest Policy

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for a review of forest policy; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Noble: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 19th November, 1962, to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt).

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a feeling in Scotland now of a need for a much more rational plan for the Forestry Commission in its endeavours to acquire land not suitable for agriculture?

Mr. Noble: It is exactly this problem which is being considered at the moment.

Mr. Hoy: Even if the Commission makes representations as to the purchase of more land and even if it has to take it compulsorily, it is entirely dependent on the Secretary of State whether permission is granted. Is it the intention to give more power to the Commission to allow it to get on with its own job?

Mr. Noble: Not more power, but I have great sympathy with the Commission in wanting to plant up extra land where land is suitable for this purpose.

Mr. Brewis: Will my right hon. Friend bring to the notice of his colleagues how much it would help the forestry industry if more home-grown timber could be used for such things as pit props, fencing and telegraph poles?

Mr. Noble: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is growing unemployment in the south-west of Scotland? Will he direct the attention of the Commission to the fact that a great deal of afforestation might be done, thus giving employment to unemployed miners?

Mr. Noble: I will certainly look at that problem.

Mr. Willis: As the Forestry Commission in Scotland is under the Secretary of State's direction, why should it be left to the Minister of Agriculture to make statements about its activities in Scotland?

Mr. Noble: It is fairly common practice in this and other fields where responsibilities are shared between Ministers.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Malta (Civilian Employees)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many men employed by his Department in Malta have been dismissed during the past year and how many will be dismissed during the next two years; and what provision he is making for alternative employment for them.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Ridsdale): In the past year thirty-seven men were discharged. As far as we can foresee we shall need to discharge about 300 more in the next two years beginning next April.
In the first instance, the question of alternative employment is one for the Government of Malta.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Under-Secretary aware that Malta is a very small island with a very large unemployment problem? The problem will become greater with the running down of the three Services. Will he take up the matter with the Governor of Malta and try to provide alternative employment for the people who are being thrown out of employment as a result of the running down of the Services?

Mr. Ridsdale: The question of employment is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, although I have much sympathy with what the hon. Member says and we shall certainly do all we can to help.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

M.1 Road (Anti-Dazzle Screens)

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Transport whether it is intended to provide an anti-dazzle barrier or in any way alter the central reservation of that section of the M.1 at present undergoing repairs.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): The surface of the central reserve is being reshaped to improve drainage. Additional lengths of drain are also being laid.
I am not proposing at present to extend the experimental anti-dazzle screen in the absence of conclusive

evidence that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. It is, however, my intention to install two experimental lengths of anti-crash barrier.

Mr. Dance: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that so many users of these motorways are of the impression that this anti-dazzle barrier is of great benefit, not only from the anti-dazzle point of view but also as a wind break? Often on wide roads there are gusts of wind which can be extremely dangerous. I know from my own experience that such a screen not only acts as an anti-dazzle screen, but also as a wind breaker. Will he reconsider this question?

Mr. Marples: Almost every person who uses a motorway has different ideas about what should be done. It is not established that in the present traffic conditions there is a case for bringing an anti-dazzle screen into general use. Pending further experience, I am not prepared to do it, but if further experience shows that it is desirable, I will certainly do it.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Why is there all this coyness about anti-dazzle barriers? Is my right hon. Friend aware that for twenty-five years there has been an anti-dazzle screen—bushes and shrubs —on the central reservation of the Winohester By-pass? This is very much approved by all the drivers who use that dual carriageway.

Mr. Marples: It is a marvellous thing that every single driver speaks for all other drivers. In my experience, drivers vary enormously in what they think ought to be done.

Mr. Paget: Northampton is on this road. I have a great deal of experience of driving down this road at night. I have yet to meet a single motorist who does not experience an enormous relief when he comes to the part by Luton where there is a screen barrier. I should like to meet the motorist we are always being told about who does not like this barrier.

Mr. Speaker: I think that would better appear in order if prefaced with some words like "Is the Minister aware?"

Mr. Marples: First, Northampton is not on the M.1. It is near the M.1, but


not on it. Secondly, if the hon. and learned Gentleman would care to go down to the Road Research Laboratory, where I frequently go, he could look at the scientific experiments being made and form his own conclusions.

Heads of the Valley Road

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Transport what reply has been sent to the representations made by Brecon-shire County Council about the delay in the construction of the Heads of the Valley Road, on the section Gilwern to Brynmawr; and whether he is satisfied that the contractor is employing sufficient labour and machinery for the work.

Mr. Marples: The county council has been informed that delay in completion of the road is due to weather and other conditions which entitle the contractor to an extension of time under the contract. It is hoped that, as a result of a concentration of effort, the contractor will be clear of the difficult section in the Black Rock area of the Clydach Gorge by the New Year thus relieving the present traffic conditions there. In view of the importance which I attach to the completion of this scheme as soon as possible, I am watching the position closely to ensure that the work progresses as quickly as weather conditions permit. I am advised that as much labour and machinery is now on the site as could usefully be employed during the winter months.

River Humber (Road Communications)

Mr. Jeger: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the opinion of the Rochdale Committee that further development of port facilities on the River Humber will almost certainly be necessary, if he will include in his road programme a motorway to link with the proposed M.62 as originally contained in the 1946 Motorway Plan.

Mr. Marples: I have no plans for extending the proposed Lancashire—Yorkshire motorway, that is, M.62, to Hull. I propose, however, to improve the trunk roads to Hull and to provide a first-class road communication system linking the port both with the West Riding and with Doncaster and the

South. I have appointed a firm of consulting engineers to recommend the most efficient and economical pattern of trunk roads to meet the present and future requirements between the Great North Road and Hull.

Mr. Jeger: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to get a report from his consulting engineers and how long after that does he expect the work to commence?

Mr. Marples: I cannot say at the moment. The firm of consulting engineers is one of great experience and I am sure that it will proceed as expeditiously as possible. I can assure the hon. Member that we shall not waste any time after we receive that report.

Sir C. Osborne: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the road facilities from the ports on the south side of the Humber are as important as the road facilities for the north side? Will he see that a port like Immingham, which is in my constituency, gets as good new facilities to the Midlands and the South as are to be given to Hull?

Mr. Marples: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter, and I should like to consider it.

Mr. Popplewell: Will the Minister see that the consulting engineers and his advisers give careful consideration when siting this road so that it is somewhere near Selby, which wild do away with the toll bridge?

Mr. Marples: I think that I had better wait for the report of the consulting engineers and take that matter up with them later.

M.1 Road-London Docks

Mr. A. Evans: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made with plans for a motorway to connect the M.1 road with the London Docks.

Mr. Marples: My long-term plan is to connect the M.1 to the London Docks by way of M.10, the South Mimms By-Pass, the "D" Ring Road, the Bishops Stortford Motorway and the Docks Relief Road. These will all be dual carriageway roads of high standard, but not all will be special roads.
The M.10 and the South Mimms By-Pass are already open. I hope to publish a draft Order under Section 7 of the Highways Act, 1959, in respect of this section of the "D" Ring Road in a few months. Consulting engineers have been appointed to survey a line for the Bishops Stortford Motorway. No detailed work has yet been undertaken on the final section.

Mr. Evans: Would the Minister say, as near as he can, how long-term this project is? Does he fully realise the aid which this motorway would give to deal with the severe congestion in the northern Metropolitan area, and that the early completion of this project would save him a lot of time, trouble and money expended on road widening schemes in the outlying parts of London?

Mr. Marples: I am aware of the urgency of this matter and that is why, in my original Answer, I gave the House a comprehensive review of what is happening. A great deal is happening. We want to move ahead as fast as we can, but however fast we move, under the statutory process we have laid down in Parliament. it will be some time before this is complete. Therefore, one must proceed with such things as the widening of Archway Road and the new route which I recently announced and which is being carefully considered. The permanent solution will be as I outlined in my Answer.

Mr. K. Robinson: Has the Minister yet reached a decision about the interim proposal for a lorry route? Can he assure the House that in no circumstances will it go through Highgate Village?

Mr. Marples: I cannot give that assurance. I am re-examining the proposal in the light of the many detailed comments and suggestions which have been made in response to my original announcement. I promised that any constructive suggestions put forward as an alternative to my suggestion would be considered and that is what has been consuming a lot of time. I must honour that pledge and I intend to continue to do so.

Dartford Tunnel (Approach Road)

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for

the establishment of an adequate approach road to the Dartford Tunnel from the south.

Mr. Marples: A new road constructed as part of the tunnel works will link the tunnel with A.2. Beyond that point the Kent County Council has on my behalf surveyed a route for the construction of the first section of the South Orbital Road I am awaiting its observations on alternative proposals which have been submitted. I will then consider the final recommendations and publish the necessary Orders under the Highways Act, 1959.

Mr. Irving: Is the Minister aware that a recent origin and destination survey showed that 13,000 passenger car units a day already use the road from the south and that a further 28,000 use the A.2? Will he indicate that any delay in constructing the new approach road will mean that the advantages which will occur in the opening of the tunnel next year will be lost because of the congestion which will occur on the present roads? Will he, therefore, give greater priority to the construction of this road than appears to be the case at present?

Mr. Marples: I do not think it is a question of priorities. The evidence which the hon. Member mentions will certainly be taken into account, but there have been difficulties and considerable opposition to the South Orbital Road, oddly enough in the Orpington area, where there seems to be opposition in all sorts of ways. But they have prepared an alternative and I will consider that. I will also consider what the hon. Member said in his supplementary question.

Severn Bridge (Suspender Ropes)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the fact that the major South Wales contracts for wire ropes for the Severn Bridge have been placed with a bridge consortium from north-east England, what steps he is taking to ensure that South Wales companies are given an opportunity of tendering for the ancillary suspender ropes.

Mr. Marples: In accordance with my request to the joint engineers for the Severn Bridge the main contractors have


been asked to obtain competitive quotations for the supply of suspender ropes from suppliers with suitable capacity, including suppliers in South Wales.

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to the Minister. Will he convey to the bridge consortium, in view of its monopoly position, that there will be a fearful row in South Wales if none of the work goes there and that its activities are being scrutinised very closely indeed?

Mr. Marples: Spinning the cables, which is done on the site by a special process, could not be done by South Wales firms. The question whether an order for other equipment is given to the people of South Wales will depend entirely on the merits of their tenders.

Dr. Bray: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the general high unemployment position in South Wales and the North-East and has he heard the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer about increasing expenditure on roads and bridges in those areas?

Mr. Marples: I am quite certain that the question of a tender should be decided on the merits of whatever the firm of contractors submit.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister aware that that is all they want?

Mr. Marples: And that is all they are going to get.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Callaghan, Question 36.

Mr. Callaghan: In which case I can tell the Minister that we shall be satisfied.

Mr. Speaker: These exchanges are so swift that they have drowned my calling Question 36.

Road Junction, Cardiff

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Transport if he will conduct a special inquiry into the series of accidents at the junction of South Park Road, Grosvenor Square and Moorland Road, Splott, Cardiff, with a view to seeing how they can be eliminated.

Mr. Marples: I have considered the accident record at this junction, which

is not exceptional. In the last three years six people have been seriously, and eleven slightly, hurt. There have been no deaths. The main factor appears to be failure to observe the traffic signs. This reflects on driving conduct rather than on the arrangements at the junction, and I do not consider that a special inquiry is called for.

Mr. Callaghan: May I ask the Minister whether he will reconsider that Answer? Is he aware that there are special geographical difficulties there? Does he know that five roads debouch into an areas as large as if not larger than a big football pitch, that there are no circulatory arrangements of any sort and that vehicles just charge straight across the area? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his engineers to have a look at the position which causes local anxiety?

Mr. Marples: Certainly I should be grateful if the hon. Member sends, in letter form, details of what my engineers should look at, and I will make certain that they look at them.

Pool Bank, Bradford-Harrogate Road

Sir M. Stoddart-Scott: asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will state the number of accidents that have taken place on the Pool Bank portion of the Bradford-Harrogate road during the present year; and how many people have been killed;
(2) what steps have been taken to make Pool Bank on the Bradford-Harrogate Road safer for motorists; and what improvements are to be made in the future.

Mr. Marples: During the first ten months of this year there were six personal injury accidents. In one of these accidents two people were killed.
There is a steep hill at Pool Bank and motorists need to take special care. Warning signs have been erected and there are carriageway markings, including double white lines. I understand that the West Riding County Council, which is the highway authority, is considering long-term improvements, but I have not yet received any proposals from it.

Sir M. Stoddart-Scott: Will my right hon. Friend propose to the council that it should consider a traffic roundabout


where this steep hill joins with another A road, the one from Wetherby to Otley, and both of which are equally important? Is he aware that a traffic roundabout might solve the difficulty?

Mr. Marples: I will see that the West Riding County Council, which is responsible for initiating the scheme, receives a copy of the exchanges now being made in the House. What it does then will be up to the council.

Motorway (Standards)

Mr. Charles A. Howell: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to provide an adequate standard in the future construction of motorways in view of the fact that five lives have been lost within two weeks on the 20-mile section of the M.1 under repair where standards have been found to be inadequate.

Mr. Marples: Without necessarily accepting the implication behind the hon. Member's Question, I can say that we do change our standards when experience shows that to be necessary. The current standard specification for motorways provides for stronger carriageways, wider and stronger hard shoulders and more elaborate drainage than on M.1.

Mr. Howell: In view of the fact that the Minister admitted to me in a letter, dated 31st October, that a calculated risk was taken in the specifications of M.1 and he appeared subsequently on television and boasted that he or his firm had taken a calculated risk in building a concrete dry dock, may I ask the Minister whether he will now give the House an assurance that he will not take calculated risks on our motorways with the lives of British people?

Mr. Marples: No, I am sorry, but it is not a question of that. All engineering is a question of balance of advantages. Anybody can build to high security standards if they are prepared to pay the price, but to produce what one wants—an efficient tool or an efficient article—at the lowest price is real efficiency and in some cases one takes a calculated risk. In spite of the cost of repair on M.1, if that is added to the original cost it will turn out to be the best and cheapest motorway in the country.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is there not a great deal of doubt whether this road is strong enough to take the heavy pounding of traffic on it? Will my right hon. Friend consider whether reinforced concrete would not be a better and more durable surface for the road?

Mr. Marples: If my hon. Friend wants to go into this he should go to the Road Research Station at Crowthorne and have a look at the experiments there. It is not so much a question of top dressing. What really counts in engineering is the foundation on which it is laid. First, concrete gets a little ahead as a top surface and then black top. It depends on technical developments which are altering all the time.

Mr. Howell: Does not the light hon. Gentleman still agree that the cost in human lives is too much in order to take a calculated risk to save a few thousand pounds on a motorway?

Mr. Marples: As far as lives are concerned, this particular incident has affected them hardly at all. It is not a question of people being killed but of inconvenience to motorists who have to slow down at a particular point.

Mr. Howell: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Motorways (Anti-Crash Barriers)

Sir Richard Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet found a barrier for use on motorways strong enough to stop a vehicle from crossing into the other carriageway and resilient enough to stop the vehicle bouncing back on to its own carriageway.

Mr. Marples: I am having a full study made of measures which might be taken to prevent accidents caused by vehicles crossing the central reserve. This includes tests by the Road Research Laboratory of the various types of barrier that are at present available. In addition I am hoping shortly to authorise the installation of two ten-mile experimental lengths of flex-beam anti-crash barrier on M.1 to see what effect such a barrier has in practice compared with the remaining parts of the motorway.

Sir Richard Pilkington: If my right hon. Friend discovers the right thing will it be made standard for all motorways?

Mr. Marples: We must take one thing at a time. I should like to have the result of these experiments first before I decide what will happen.

A.30, A.33, and A.31 Roads

Sir Richard Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport what improvements are to be made between London and the Poole, Bournemouth, Christchurch conurbation on the A.30, A.33, and A.31 roads, particularly between Ringwood and Ferndown.

Mr. Marples: In the longer term, the answer will lie in the London to Basingstoke motorway, with dual carriageways onwards from Basingstoke.
The route of the motorway is now being surveyed. Meanwhile many improvements are being made or planned on A.30, A.33 and A.31. The construction of dual carriageways between Ringwood and Ferndown has already begun.

Bristol-Birmingham Motorway

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Transport when he intends to let contracts for the southern section of the Bristol-Birmingham Motorway.

Mr. Marples: A scheme is being prepared for extending the Birmingham-Bristol Motorway southwards from Twyning to East Brent in Somerset. I cannot say when the contracts will be let: construction will depend on completion of the statutory processes and on the availability of funds.

Mr. Ridley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the traffic congestion in Tewkesbury has become quite appalling? Until the completion of the first stage of the motorway, will my right hon. Friend take emergency measures to make at least a short by-pass section available for an early start, in view of the congestion of the main road to the south?

Mr. Marples: I am sorry about the congestion in Tewkesbury, but the answer will be this motorway. I doubt whether it is worth while to take emergency measures.

Mr. Webster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am glad to hear what he said about an extension south from Bristol to East Brent? Can he give any further idea of when the work will begin?

Mr. Marples: I said in my original Answer that I cannot say when the contract will be let. Construction depends on the completion of statutory processes, which are not in my hands at all, and on the availability of funds.

Mr. Ridley: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Long Vehicles and Trailers (Regulations)

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider introducing regulations whereby lorries and trailers of more than a specified length must carry reflectors along the side of their vehicles.

Mr. Marples: I have recently made the Road Vehicles Lighting (Long Vehicles and Trailers) Regulations, 1962, which, from 24th July, 1963, will require motor vehicles and trailers exceeding prescribed lengths to carry marker lamps along their sides. I think my hon. Friend will find that these new requirements serve the purpose he has in mind.

Mr. Dance: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply? Does he realise that this will, I believe, go a long way to stop quite serious accidents occurring in the future?

Mr. Marples: I think it will be helpful, and I am terribly grateful to anybody who thanks me.

Weekends (Speed Limits)

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement as to the effect of the experimental speed limits in force at weekends this summer.

Mr. Marples: On the lengths of road with a 50 m.p.h. speed limit there was a reduction of 30 per cent. in the number of accidents involving personal injury as


compared with the corresponding weekends in 1959. On a group of comparable roads with no speed limit there was a similar reduction on the 1959 figure. On other roads in the non-built-up areas the number of casualties during the summer months of 1962 was about the same as in 1959.

Mr. Channon: Has my right hon. Friend made up his mind as to what he proposes to do next year? If he has not, will he consider, at any rate on some sections of these roads, not having speed limits so early on Fridays and carrying on so late on Mondays, because a great many people going to work find them unnecessary at those times?

Mr. Marples: I am considering the implications of these results and I will make a statement as soon as possible. However, I am sure that I take the whole House with me when I say that, if I can reduce the number of people killed and wounded by reducing the speed limit, it ought to be done. At present I do not think that the evidence is quite sufficient. I propose to examine it in great detail and I will consider the suggestion made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. John Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that over many motorways in the United States a speed limit of 60 miles per hour is imposed, which has been found extremely beneficial and conducive to the saving of life? Will he consider this for the future?

Mr. Marples: Yes, I have certainly got that in mind. There is an official of my Department in the United States now considering what happens on their motorways. From the reports that I have from him he has so far not been on a motorway whore the speed limit is in excess ot 65 miles per hour.

Sir H. Oakshott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the very large increase in the number of motor cars on the roads since 1959, the figures he gave a few minutes ago are very satisfactory?

Mr. Marples: One of the most difficult problems for a Minister of Transport is the question of road accidents. The number of both fatalities and serious accidents is rising. Whilst the numbers are better than they were in

the past, I still think they are bad by what I should consider would be the ideal.

Traffic Problems (Goole)

Mr. Jeger: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now received a request for expert assistance in advising Goole on its traffic problems; and what action is being taken.

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. The borough engineer wrote to my divisional road engineer on 2nd November and a meeting is being arranged.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Rochdale Committee (Report)

Mr. Strauss: asked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take on the recommendations of the Rochdale Report.

Mr. Marples: The Government have asked the national representative bodies concerned for their views on the Committee's main recommendations. When I have received and fully considered those views I will make a statement.

Mr. Strauss: Can the Minister give any idea about the timetable—how long it will be before he can tell the House what he proposes to do, and whether it will be in the form of a White Paper or some such document?

Mr. Marples: Quite frankly. I do not know yet. I am waiting for these considered reports from the interested parties concerned, but I can promise the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no undue delay. This Committee was appointed to do a job of work. It did that efficiently in a short time and I hope to receive these representations by the end of the month. I can assure the House that it is my earnest desire to move ahead quickly with modernising our ports.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: While appreciating that the Report was mainly directed to the major ports and harbours, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give an assurance that before he finally comes to a conclusion he will allow the points of view of the smaller port authorities to be considered as well?

Mr. Marples: Certainly, and when I have received the representations from the major bodies I propose to ask individual port authorities to give me their views on the Rochdale Report.

Mr. Popplewell: In the meantime, while the Minister is awaiting this information, what attitude will he take about the Docks and Harbour Board? Will he continue to establish that Board or will he wait until he reaches his decision on the Rochdale Committee's Report?

Mr. Marples: I think that the whole thing should be treated comprehensively. I hope to finalise the Government's views on what we should do with the docks as a whole and present them to the House.

Mr. Webster: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he proposes to take to implement the urgent recommendation of the Rochdale Committee that information should be collected to assist the proposed National Ports Authority to act efficiently.

Mr. Marples: My Department is examining what additional statistics the managements and users of ports should be asked to supply. This additional paper work will mean some trouble and expense and I want to be sure that my demands for more statistics are carefully thought out.

Mr. Webster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a most urgent recommendation by the Rochdale Committee and that it is to be hoped that, although this will be dealt with urgently, the plan followed will be a long-term plan and not a crash programme?

Mr. Marples: I quite agree. I am certain that the ports, docks and harbours of the country ought to be looked at in the long term and should be dealt with comprehensively.

Sir C. Osborne: Will my right hon. Friend give a pledge that the interests of the smaller ports will not be forgotten when he makes his major plan?

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir.

Canals

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the fact that British canals often fall into weed-choked disrepair and force cargo boats and

pleasure seekers away, if he will give a general direction to the British Waterways Board to rehabilitate its canals.

Mr. Marples: In the Transport Act, 1962, Parliament has placed specific duties on the British Waterways Board in relation to its inland waterways, including a financial duty to keep its deficits at the lowest possible level. I do not, therefore, propose to give a direction such as the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these canals are not only useless but are an eyesore and that if they were dredged and made navigable, we could thereby relieve some of the traffic congestion on our roads? If they are not to be used in future, will the Minister have them filled in and make new roads out of them?

Mr. Marples: That is a very wide supplementary question and it depends on where the canals are, where they come from, where they go to and whether the condition of them is such that they can be made usable for traffic. There are a whole series of considerations and the matter is not as simple as the hon. Member suggests.

Sir G. Nicholson: My right hon. Friend has successfully dodged the question. Is he not aware that many of these canals are in a semi-derelict condition and that it is no use his saying that there are certain duties placed on the Commission unless those duties are carried out, particularly in regard to the Kennet and Avon Canal?

Mr. Marples: I did not say that duties were placed on the Commission but on the new British Waterways Board which starts on 1st January next. It will be a new Board, divorced from the Commission, with an Exchequer subsidy for its deficits for five years, a specific capital sum for five years and a duty to say what shall be done for the canals. I do not think that that is wrong.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Main Line Trains (Meals)

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission to provide cheaper meals on main line passenger trains.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that the present policy of providing meals on main line trains is one of diminishing returns? Is not the Minister giving any consideration to families travelling from one town to another? Should they not be able to purchase something other than a set lunch or dinner costing them about 15s. each?

Mr. Marples: In the buffet cars that is not so. They can purchase snacks and all sorts of things. The only reduction which has been made affected the restaurant car service, which last year lost £¼ million.

Mr. Roberts: Is not the Minister aware that there are no buffet cars on the Leeds to King's Cross route? Will he consider the 'provision of automatic machines on trains? Does he appreciate that if he is prepared to organise this service properly it will not incur a loss but will make a profit?

Mr. Marples: That may be so, but this is a question for the British Transport Commission and, later, the British Railways Board as a matter of day-to-day judgment, and not a matter for me as the Minister.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give directions for cheap nourishing, succulent food to be made available—[AN HON. MEMBER: A red herring?]—No. A straightforward herring —without calling in aid expensive foods such as those which are obtainable only on the trains and without calling in aid any other kind of red herring?

Mr. Marples: I will call the attention of the British Transport Commission to the hon. and learned Member's supplementary question, but I would point out that a lot depends on the age of the fish.

INDIA AND CHINA

Mr. Gaitskell: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement on the India-China conflict.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Hon. Members will have seen the statement published by the Chinese Government offering a cease-fire

and the withdrawal of their troops from 1st December. Hon. Members will, no doubt, also have seen the statement by Mr. Nehru in the Indian Parliament that he has not received any official information of this offer.
The Indian Government have always made it clear that they were ready for a settlement by negotiation, and we, for our part, would, of course, welcome a peaceful outcome if this' can be attained with justice and honour to India. It is for the Indian Government to determine whether the Chinese proposals constitute an acceptable basis for negotiation.
In all these matters we are maintaining the closest touch with the Indian Government, and for this purpose a mission has left for India by air today. This consists of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff with a suitable military team, together with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Commonwealth Relations. My right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary was intending to leave for a visit both to India and Pakistan this week, but has been forced to postpone this owing to indisposition. He hopes, however, to be able to leave at the end of the week.
I know that the Indian people have been heartened by the support which the Government and people of Britain have shown to a fellow member of the Commonwealth in resisting aggression. Our two Governments have throughout been in the closest touch, but I have thought that at this time of danger it would be right to arrange for this special mission.

Mr. Gaitskell: The House will be obliged to the Prime Minister for that statement and will agree with him that the question of what should be said about this Chinese proposal is essentially one for the Indian Government. I do not think that it would be wise or appropriate for us to comment on this matter at the moment.
I think that the House, also, will be glad to hear the news of the mission which is on its way to India. In that connection, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, supposing that the Secretary of State is unable to go within the next few days because of illness, he will consider whether it would not be wise to send out another senior member


of the Government, in view of the importance of the task to be undertaken? Finally, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any news of the ceasefire? Has it begun, or is fighting still continuing?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said in his first remark. I have every hope that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will be able to make this visit. If it is not possible, we shall have to consider some other arrangement. With regard to the third, as I understood it, it is still very obscure; the withdrawal was to take place as from 1st December—[An HON. MEMBER: "The cease-fire."] The cease-fire—first, the cease-fire and then the withdrawal. But the latest information that I have seen is of continued fighting. That may be because of the time differences, and so on. I am waiting for further confirmation when we get the next news by telegram from India.

Mr. Wade: May I take up the point made by the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) yesterday? Would the Prime Minister agree that, taking the long view, it is most important that aggression should not succeed, and should be seen not to succeed, and that we must keep that always in mind? Secondly, may I inquire whether the mission is concerned solely with military requirements, or will it be empowered to consider any possible means of economic aid?

The Prime Minister: I think that both will be covered. The primary question relates to immediate military requirements, and we have already fulfilled what was asked for. There are some further requirements which the Chief of the Imperial General Staff will be able to discuss with the Chief of Staff in India. The question of economic aid or economic arrangements will, of course, have to come later. The important thing is to get any weapons over that we are able to spare and which are suitable for the Indian Army's needs.

Mr. Fell: While I am sure that everybody is delighted to hear of the very strong mission which is going forthwith to India, may we have an assurance, as I think was implicit in what my right

hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just said, that the movement of arms to India for which she has asked will go on until there is some clarification of the present suggestion for a cease-fire by the Chinese?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I did not feel, when I saw this news late last night, that we should make any alteration in the arrangements which we have made, and they have, therefore, proceeded.

Mr. Bellenger: The Prime Minister has spoken, not only today but yesterday, of negotiations between India and China. Obviously, those are the two principals who have got to talk together, but is the House to understand that as China is not a member of the United Nations it would be impossible for the subject to be brought before the United Nations and dealt with there if it were thought necessary?

The Prime Minister: Oh, no, there would be nothing impossible in that. If I remember, the whole Korean dispute was brought before the United Nations, although China was not a member.

Mr. Wyatt: Is the Prime Minister aware that I found recently in India that the sympathetic and understanding nature of his own statements had been particularly well received there? Would he also bear in mind that the Chinese offer is not as fair as it looks when one considers that included in it would be the retention of a very large part of Ladakh, which is one of the areas in dispute?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. As to the second part of his question, of course all these matters must be most carefully examined by the Indian Government. I do not think it would be wise for me to enter into the matter today, but that I should leave it to develop.

Sir A. V. Harvey: If the delegation going out to India finds that the Indian Government require technical assistance to operate equipment, in addition to the actual arms supplied, will Her Majesty's Government be sympathetic to their proposal?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Of course, my hon. Friend will see that that may take different forms and there are certain problems connected with it.

Mr. Sorensen: With regard to the reported offer of the Chinese Government, has the right hon. Gentleman sought consultation with other Governments in the Commonwealth or outside the Commonwealth, or is he likely to do so in the near future?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, all through we have been communicating our views and consulting with the Commonwealth countries, and, of course, with the Government of the United States, who are helping in their way. They have also sent a mission for the same purpose. All this is being concerted, but this rather unexpected development makes it necessary for us to see how things will turn out. I still think that it does not make it unnecessary for us to continue to give what assistance we can to build up the strength of the Indian Army after the aggression which India has suffered.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a cease-fire without prejudice to an ultimately negotiated just settlement of the matters in dispute is in itself to be welcomed as an improvement in the situation? Can he or can he not confirm, as a matter of fact, that the line behind which the Chinese are offering to withdraw is not very different from the McMahon Line and that their offer is much the same as the one they made on 24th October last, and that has been open for acceptance ever since?

Sir C. Osborne: And rejected by India.

The Prime Minister: There are two points there. The cessation of hostilities is always a good thing and must be welcomed if it takes place. The question of lines is a very complicated matter and I would rather not be drawn into it. The McMahon Line deals with the eastern part of the matter in dispute and not with the equally important part in Ladakh on the western side.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we must now move to domestic matters.

HOUSE OF COMMONS ACCOMMODATION (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make to the House about accommodation.
Last Session, I appointed a Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) to consider how best an area of about 40,000 sq. ft. on the other side of Bridge Street might be used to provide additional permanent accommodation for this House.
I have now received and considered the Committee's Report. As the recommendations are rather detailed, I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT and restrict my statement today to general comment.
The total area to be provided can be increased to 50,000 sq. ft., provided that the accommodation at present occupied in Nos. 6 and 7 Old Palace Yard be surrendered. The Committee recommends this.
The Committee proposes that the majority of the accommodation, about 35,000 sq. ft., should be used to provide individual or shared rooms for Members and rooms for secretaries. The balance would be used for various facilities for Members and their wives, for the Press Gallery and for officials of the House on late duty.
These recommendations would ultimately result in about 280 Members having working space at some distance from the Chamber and outside the Palace of Westminster. The Committee has, therefore, recommended that there should be a private access and that the new accommodation should be so sited and designed that Members would have no difficulty in reaching the Division Lobbies in the time allowed. The Committee has also stressed the importance of making, the new accommodation be, and be seen to be, a Parliamentary precinct.
A majority of the Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association should surrender its existing accommodation in Westminster Hall Annexe and accept rather larger premises in the new building, although


the Association made clear that it would prefer not to do so. I understand that subsequent discussions have shown that in the House also there would not be general unanimity that the Association should be required to make this move and that Her Majesty's Government do not, therefore, propose to accept the recommendation.
The authorities of the House and the Government are prepared to accept the other recommendations regarding the allocation of accommodation. The Minister of Public Building and Works is willing to instruct the architect to embody all the Committee's recommendations as to access, scope for possible expansion and commercial development in his design, subject only to the limitations imposed by the site, and to submit in due time for the prior approval of the House a model of the proposed building. The detailed planning of the interior would similarly be submitted for approval.
The Committee further recommends that provision be made for parking Members' cars as near as may be equivalent to the number of rooms to be provided for Members. I am advised that, while it is not likely to be practicable to provide car parking facilities on such a scale, the maximum amount of space available for car parking will be utilised.
I think that the House will agree that these proposals coupled with the additional facilities to be provided in the roof space above the Committee corridor, on which work is planned to start in the Summer Recess of 1963, will go a long way to meet the reasonable demands of Members for privacy for their work.
I hope that the House will agree to the recommendations of the Committee, subject only to the limitations I have mentioned, and will authorise me to ask the Minister of Public Building and Works to implement them.
It was no easy task for the Committee to complete its investigations and submit its Report before the end of the Session. I am sure that the House will wish me to congratulate the Chairman and the Member upon the work they have done and to thank them for the service which they have rendered to the House.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Sir G. Nicholson: You will no doubt recollect, Mr. Speaker, that, when the House was being rebuilt, a Select Committee of Members was appointed so that Members could advise upon architectural style and amenities. In this case, in view of the fact that architectural considerations are involved, will Members of the House have a chance of expressing their views on the nature of the architecture in general?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the proper way for me to answer the hon. Gentleman is to invite him to treat that question as addressed to the Leader of the House. The House knows the rather "figurehead" position I occupy in these matters.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): If I may answer that, Mr. Speaker, a model of the proposed accommodation showing its relationship to the Palace of Westminster and the rest of the development will be exhibited in due course. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works would, if the House is in general agreement with what has been said by Mr. Speaker, go ahead with the first task which is, of course, to appoint the architect. We should keep the House informed at all stages.

Sir G. Nicholson: My right hon. Friend has not quite answered my question. As I understand, he has rather implied that the House will be put in a "take it or leave it" position. Will hon. Members have a chance of exerting their influence on the nature of the architecture?

Mr. Macleod: I am sorry that I misunderstood. I thought that my hon. Friend was just asking for information about how the site would be developed.
I am sure that the House would wish to consider, perhaps a little nearer the time, whether it would be appropriate to set up a Committee of Members—no doubt, it will come to this conclusion—to examine and, indeed, to approve these proposals. Naturally, the House of Commons will wish to watch these matters at all possible stages.

Sir J. Duncan: May on behalf of the Committee, thank you for your statement, Mr. Speaker, and say that if, when the time comes and the models are ready, you should think fit to reappoint


your Advisory Committee on Accommodation, we should, no doubt, be willing to do our best to satisfy hon. Members and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson).

Mr. Gaitskell: I am sure that the whole House will wish to be associated with you, Mr. Speaker, in your thanks to the Committee for the work that it has done. I am, however, still a little confused about the next step. Is it not appropriate that the House should have an opportunity of discussing this extremely interesting and valuable Report? Most of us, I know, would wish to study it in detail before commenting. In the course of such a debate, it might, perhaps, be useful to you, Sir, to have the opinions of hon. Members on particular recommendations of the Committee. I wonder whether this was in your mind. Perhaps I might ask the Leader of the House whether he could find time for a debate on the Report at a reasonably early date?

Mr. Macleod: We could discuss that in the usual way. There are, I think, two points I should make. First, 20 recommendations are made, and a summary of all these, not of the arguments which led to them, will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is suggested that 19 of the recommendations should be accepted and that the one on which there was considerable discussion, the question of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, should not be accepted. In that sense, therefore, there is only that particular matter in dispute.
The other point, on which, perhaps, I can take advice, is that this is a Report by Mr. Speaker's Committee to Mr. Speaker. Therefore, in the normal way, it is not published. However, I dare say that we can find ways to get over these difficulties and we can have these discussions.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am not sure that I follow the right hon. Gentleman. He speaks of 19 of the 20 recommendations being accepted, and by that I understand him to mean that the Government have accepted them.

Mr. Speaker: I am getting confused. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman meant that they were unanimous, so to speak. I do not know what it is.

Mr. Gaitskell: This is surely a matter which the House should have an opportunity Of discussing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have not the slightest idea what views hon. Members will take. I have not seen the Report. This is not a matter, as I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, since you asked us to authorise you to go ahead, which should be settled without our having the opportunity of discussing it.

Mr. Macleod: I have said that, of course, we shall discuss it.

Sir C. Osborne: Can the House be told roughly what the cost of this will be?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot give an estimate at this date. Naturally, the Votes will have to be taken in the usual way in due course.

Mr. Thorpe: Arising out of the question of the Leader of the Opposition, may I, Mr. Speaker, without going into the merits of the matter one way or the other, put this consideration to you? You said in your statement that the Government had taken a certain view about the proposals in regard to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Do we take it that this also can be the subject of discussion by the House, or are the Government taking a final view on the question without any reference to the House?

Mr. Macleod: A considerable number of representations were made by hon. Members, on both sides, and this point was taken into account. If we are to discuss this matter in the way suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps the phrase Which I might most appropriately use is that it is the Government's present view that it would be wrong to accept this recommendation. But we will, of course, listen to what is said in the House of Commons.

Mr. Tiley: Lest it be thought on either side of the House that the Committee worked for a year on these projects without any thought, may I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) that we on the Committee knew each of the costings as we went along and approved them? Therefore, we have not acted blindly.

Mr. C. Pannell: May I put to the Leader of the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, the necessity for a debate on this matter, because confusion is already arising from a reply given the other day by the Minister of Public Building and Works, in which he envisaged that a public house and shops would be built within the Parliamentary precincts? As there is so much misunderstanding on the part of the Minister, might it not be possible for the House to tell the Minister and the Government What would suit hon. Members? Does not this illustrate the need, as suggested by the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson), of a continuing Committee of Members of the House to look after this project?

Mr. Macleod: I have already answered the Leader of the Opposition concerning time to discuss the matter. If I may remind the House of a sentence in the statement by Mr. Speaker, it said:
The Minister of Public Building and Works is willing to instruct the architect to embody all the Committee's recommendations as to access, scope for possible expansion and commercial development in his design.

Sir C. Osborne: May I press my point? If one of the members of the Committee states that the Committee knew the cost of each item and sanctioned it, surely the House is entitled to know how much we will spend. If we do not know what we are spending, no scheme should be passed by this House until we know what the taxpayer has to find. I am asking the approximate amount.

Mr. Macleod: That cannot be given. Detailed estimates were not and could not be, at this stage, before the Committee. Those who appeared before the Committee gave what evidence they could, but the matter will be before the House in due course and my right hon. Friend will give this information to the House so that hon. Members are informed of the costs.

Mr. Woodburn: I gathered from what you said, Mr. Speaker, that a number of Members would be working at some distance from the House and I wondered whether, in the readjustment of the space, people who did not need to be near the House during the day would still retain accommodation in the main building, such as people who sleep in

the main building and who have residential accommodation there. This would seem to be something which could more easily be moved a distance than the work of Members and their secretaries. I wonder whether the principle has been accepted that Members who are busy here through the day and people who can move least easily should be kept as near the main building as possible.

Mr. Macleod: Of course, we would do the best we could. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will study the summary of recommendations and, if he wishes, develop the point later.

Following is a summary of the recommendations of the Committee:

1. The previously agreed proposals for the allocation of the space to be made available in the Roof Space above the Committee Corridor should stand.

2. The amount of accommodation to be allocated on the Bridge Street site should be increased from 40,000 sq. ft. to 50,000 sq. ft. in exchange for the whole of Nos. 6/7 Old Palace Yard.

3. The 50,000 sq. ft. to be made available on the Bridge Street site should be allocated as follows:

(a) Approximately 4,200 sq. ft. for the exclusive use of H.M. Opposition to provide:

(i) A Conference Room to scat up to 25 Members.
(ii) A small room close by for the storage of papers.
(iii) Individual or shared rooms for 20 Members.
(iv) Accommodation for 20 secretaries.
(b) Approximately 1,000 sq. ft. for sleeping accommodation for officers of the House and officials on late duty.
(c) A room of some 800 sq. ft. to be equipped as a walling and refreshment room for Members' wives and the husbands of Lady Members in addition to the facilities already provided in the Harcourt Room.
(d) A room of approximately 400 sq. ft. for the use of journalists working for Sunday newspapers.
(e) Accommodation of about 800 sq. ft. for a Library Service for Members.
(f) A suite of offices of some 2.000 sq. ft. for the United Kingdom Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
(g) Accommodation equivalent to that now occupied in Nos. 6 and 7 Old Palace Yard by and for the General Council of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association; the British American Parliamentary Group and the House of Commons Refreshment Department amounting in all to some 3.500 sq. ft.


(h) The balance of the 50,000 sq. ft. to be designed to provide individual or shared rooms far Members and rooms for their secretaries.

4. The new accommodation should

(a) be capable of expansion,
(b) be physically connected to the Palace of Westminster by a private access,
(c) be so sited and have such facilities as may be necessary to ensure that Members can reach the Division Lobbies in the time prescribed by the Standing Orders,
(d) have adequate car parking facilities,
(e) be designed, equipped and administered as a Parliamentary Precinct and in no way associated with any commercial development.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. Would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, for me to ask the Leader of the House a question about today's business?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker indicated assent.

Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt recall that yesterday, in announcing that he was putting a Motion on the Order Paper about referring a matter to the Special Committee on Procedure, he said:
I am putting the appropriate Motion on the Order Paper today…and would invite the House to take it tomorrow."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November. 1962; Vol. 667, c. 1014.]
That is to say, the right hon. Gentleman was inviting the House to take it today. In the exchanges which followed, I asked whether, in that case, it would be taken at a time when the House could reasonably debate it and the right hon. Gentleman said that he would consider that.
The Motion appears on the Order Paper today as Government item No. 6. Some of the five items which precede it are substantial. There is a Notice of Motion on the Order Paper to move to suspend the Standing Order, but that is limited to one hour. In those circumstances, may I ask the Leader of the House whether it is still intended to take this Motion today?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): If I may reply, I put down the Motion, as I told the House I would do, at the earliest possible moment, and I thought it appropriate to move to suspend the

Standing Order for one hour. My feeling is that there is a good chance that we will be able to say such things as we wish to say in that time. If not, however, and if that is inconvenient, I would then move to defer it until tomorrow, when, I believe, there is no other business which is not exempt after ten o'clock and I could move for an hour's extension, which could be wholly devoted to this matter, from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m.

BILLS PRESENTED

PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS

Bill to penalise fraudulent inducements to invest on deposit; to restrict and regulate the issue of advertisements for deposits; to make special provision with respect to the accounts to be delivered by and the supervision of companies which issue such advertisements; to amend section 13 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Erroll; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Green, and Mr. du Cann; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 17.]

LEASEHOLD

Bill to extend the rights of certain leaseholders of residential property; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Denis Howell; supported by Sir F. Soskice, Mr. Callaghan, Mr. G. Thomas, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Marsh, Mr. Skeffington, Sir B. Janner, Mr. Mellish, and Mr. MacDermot; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 7th December, and to be printed. [Bill 18.]

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES AND RECONCILIATION

Bill to amend the law relating to matrimonial causes; to facilitate reconciliation in such causes; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Abse; supported by Miss Vickers, Mr. Hooson, Mr. Weitzman, Mr. Ll. Williams, Mr. Morris, Mr. Foster, Mr. Parker, Mr. Ridley, and Mr. M. Foot; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 8th February, and to be printed. [Bill 19.]

WIDOWS' PENSIONS

Bill to increase the ten shilling pensions payable to certain widows, and to amend the law regarding earnings of widows in receipt of pensions, presented by Mr. Lipton; supported by Mr. Allaun, Mr. Dodds, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. W. Griffiths, Mr. Hilton, Mr. Hoy, Miss Lee, Mr. Pavitt. Sir L. Plummer, Mrs. White, and Mr. V. Yates; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 25th January, and to be printed. [Bill 20.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS)

Bill to extend the powers of local authorities to defray expenses incurred by their members and officers, or by other members of their committees or sub-committees, and to contribute or subscribe to other local authorities and to bodies having activities connected with local government; to authorise certain expenditure by local authorities for the benefit of their areas or inhabitants but not otherwise authorised; to make further provision with respect to borrowing by local authorities, the management of local authority debt, the application by local authorities of capital funds, renewal and repair funds, unexpended balances of loans and capital money received by way of financial adjustment, and the acquisition by a local authority of its own securities; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Speir; supported by Wing Commander Bullus, Sir G. Wills, Mr. S. O. Davies, Sir H. Butcher, Mr. Mellish, Mr. Wingfield Digby, Mr. Temple, Mr. Ainsley, Mr. Slater and Mr. Probert; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 8th March, and to be printed. [Bill 21.]

HISTORIC BUILDINGS

Bill to amend the law relating to the granting of permission to develop land in the vicinity of historic buildings, presented by Mr. Robert Cooke; supported by Sir P. Agnew, Lord Balniel, Mr. Ede, Lady Megan Lloyd George, Lord John Hope, Sir H. Kerr, Mr. More, Mr. Renton, Dr. Stross, Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley, and Mr. Thorpe; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 22nd February and to be printed. [Bill 22.]

GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS

Bill to amend the law with respect to the guardianship, and custody of infants, presented by Miss Vickers; supported by Mrs. Emmet, Mrs. Braddock, Sir G. Nicholson, and Mr. Johnson Smith; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 8th February and to be printed. [Bill 23.]

OATHS AND EVIDENCE (OVERSEAS AUTHORITIES AND COUNTRIES)

Bill to authorise the administration of oaths and the performance of notarial acts by representatives of, and other persons empowered by the authorities of, countries overseas, and by representatives of Her Majesty in post overseas; and to amend the Foreign Tribunals Evidence Act 1856 and the Evidence (Foreign, Dominion and Colonial Documents) Act 1933, presented by Mr. Biggs-Davison; supported by Mr. Renton, Mr. Elwyn Jones, and Mr. Wade; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 7th December, and to be printed. [Bill 24.]

ESTATE AGENTS

Bill to make provision with respect to persons who negotiate for or otherwise act in relation to the acquisition or disposal by others of estates, interests or rights in or over land, and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Sir H. Legge-Bourke; supported by Sir C. Black, Mr. Bowen, Mr. P. Browne, Sir Richard Glyn, Sir A. Hurd, Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe, Mr. Moyle, Mr. Pargiter, Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley, Mr. Vane, and Mr. van Straubenzee; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 22nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

NURSING HOMES

Bill to authorise the Minister of Health to make regulations as to the conduct of nursing homes; and to repeal section 192 of the Public Health Act 1936 and section 246 of the Public Health (London) Act 1936, presented by Mr. A. Brown; supported by Lord Balniel, Mr. Brockway, Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux, Mr. Curran, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. James, Mi. D. Jones, Sir H. Linstead, Mr. Weitzman, and Mr. J. Wells; read the First


time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 7th December, and to be printed. [Bill 26.]

CORN RENTS

Bill to make further provision for the apportionment and redemption of corn rents and other payments wholly or partly payable in lieu of tithes and for the extinguishment thereof in certain cases; to transfer to the Treasury the functions of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under subsection (2) of section 30 of the Tithe Act 1936; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe; supported by Sir A. Hurd, Mr. Gibson-Watt, and Mr. Prior; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 25th January, and to be printed. [Bill 27.]

OIL IN NAVIGABLE WATERS

Bill to enable effect to be given to certain amendments of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil 1954, and otherwise to extend the Oil in Navigable Waters Act 1955, presented by Mr. H. A. Price; supported by Mr. Callaghan, Mr. Gower, Mr. Mawby, Mr. Mellish, and Sir 0. Prior-Palmer; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 8th February, and to be printed. [Bill 28.]

DEER (ENGLAND AND WALES)

Bill to provide close seasons for deer; to prohibit the killing and taking of deer by certain devices and at certain times and to restrict the use of vehicles in connection with the killing and taking of deer; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. More; supported by Mr. Burden, Mr. Dugdale, Mr. D. James, Mr. Kimball, Dr. King, Mr. Cordle, Mr. J. Morrison, Sir G. Nicholson, Mr. Speir, Sir H. Studholme, and Sir G. Wills; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 8th March, and to be printed. [Bill 29.]

LIMITATION

Bill to extend in certain cases the time-limit for bringing legal proceedings where damages are claimed which consist of or include damages or solatium in respect of personal injuries (including any disease or impairment of a person's

physical or mental condition) or in respect of a person's death; to limit the time within which proceedings for contribution may be brought under section 6 of the Law Reform (Married Woman and Tortfeasors) Act 1935 or section 3 (2) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1940; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Buck; supported by Sir L. Heald, Mr. A. J. Irvine, Mr. Finch, Mr. C. Royle, Mr. Walder, Mr. van Straubenzee, Mr. Taverne, Mr. Hooson, and Mr. Brewis; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 25th January, and to be printed. [Bill 30.]

DRUGS ADVISORY BOARD

Bill to provide for the establishment of a Drugs Advisory Board; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Peter Emery; supported by Sir P. Agnew, Mr. W. Clark, Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith, Mr. Tiley, Dame Irene Ward, Mr. Dance, Mr. Walder, Mr. Mathew, Mr. Biffen, Mr. Peter Walker, and Sir P. Roberts; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 22nd February, and to be printed. [Bill 31.]

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (LAND)

Bill to make amendments of the law relating to the functions of local authorities in relation to land to the like effect as those commonly made in local Acts; to enable local authorities to provide accommodation for keeping motor vehicles; to amend the provisions of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 relating to the treatment of derelict land; to amend the law with respect to the power of municipal boroughs to use the general rate fund and borrow for non-statutory purposes; to apply Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act 1959 to corporate land; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Sir G. Nicholson; supported by Sir B. Craddock, Mr. Hornby, Sir A. Hurd, Sir J. Maitland, Sir R. Nugent, and Mr. Skeet; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 22nd February, and to be printed. [Bill 32.]

SHERIFF COURTS (CIVIL JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND)

Bill to increase the amount by reference to which actions are classified as summary causes in the sheriff court in Scotland; to increase the amount by reference to which the small debt jurisdiction of the sheriff is limited; to amend the law with regard to the bringing of actions between spouses for interim aliment of small amounts in the sheriff's small debt court and with regard to the jurisdiction of the sheriff in such actions brought as aforesaid; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Malcolm MacPherson; supported by Mr. Gourlay, Mr. McInnes, Mr. Small, Mr. Woodburn, Mr. Willis, Mr. Hannan, Commander Donaldson, Sir J. Gilmour, Mr. Forbes Hendry, Mr. Clark Hutchison, and Mr. J. Henderson; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 8th February, and to be printed. [Bill 33.]

SALE OF REPTILES

Bill to regulate the sale of reptiles, presented by Sir H. Linstead; supported by Mr. Burden, Mr. Dugdale, Lady Gammans, Mr. Hayman, Mr. E. Johnson, Dr. King, Mr. E. L. Mallalieu, Mr. Mathew, Sir T. Moore, Miss Quennell, and Sir W. Wakefield; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 22nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

ANIMAL BOARDING ESTABLISHMENTS

Bill to regulate the keeping of boarding establishments for animals; and for purposes connected therewith, presented

by Mr. F. M. Bennett; supported by Sir R. Robinson, Wing Commander Bullus, Mr. Hayman, Mr. Russell, Mr. Skeffington, Mrs. Emmet, Mr. D. Griffiths, Lady Gammans, and Mr. Beaney: read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 7th December, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]

FORESTRY (SALE OF LAND) (SCOTLAND)

Bill to extend the power conferred on the Secretary of State by paragraph (c) of subsection (7) of section 4 of the Forestry Act 1945 to sell land vested in or acquired by him by or under the said section 4, presented by Sir J. Duncan; supported by Earl of Dalkeith, Sir J. Gilmour, Mr. Hannan, Mr. Kimball, and Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 7th December, and to be printed. [Bill 36.]

WILLS

Bill to repeal the Wills Act 1961 and make new provision in lieu thereof; and to provide that certain testamentary instruments shall be probative for the purpose of the conveyance of heritable property in Scotland, presented by Mr. Hutchison; supported by Mr. J. Henderson, Mr. Forbes Hendry, Mr. Oswald, Mr. Wolrige-Gordon, Mr. Woodburn, and Mr. Brewis; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 22nd February, and to be printed. [Bill 37.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.0 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The responsibilities of my Department cover a wide field, and from time to time matters accumulate which call for the attention of this House. The greater part of the present Bill deals with direct Government assistance to the agricultural industry, designed to improve its structure and its general competitiveness. Some well-tried schemes we wish to see continued or extended, and we are proposing to bring in some new ones as well.
The first two Clauses of the Bill deal with hill farming, which accounts for about one-third of our agricultural land and produces much of our breeding and store livestock. Clause 1 provides for a further £3 million for improvement grants. Since the Hill Farming Act, 1946, the House has voted £27 million in all to enable us to pay half the cost of comprehensive rehabilitation schemes for hill and upland farms. Of this £27 million, only £15 million has been paid out so far, but a further £11 million has been committed in work which has already been approved, so unless more money is provided we ought now to stop accepting applications. The additional £3 million which we are asking for will allow farmers to apply until 5th November, 1963, which is the closing date for applications announced when this matter was last before the House in 1956. The actual work need not be completed by that date, but the applications will have to be in by that date.
Clause 2 would give us an extra four years in which to make schemes for paying hill cow and sheep subsidies, now running at about £6 million a year. These subsidies have been paid in one form or another since the war years. Payment for hill sheep helps to maintain the basic foundation stocks of hardy ewes from which moist of the national flock derives, and that for hill cows has

encouraged the improvement of rough upland grazing and the establishment there of regular herds of beef breeding cows; and I am sure that the House would wish us to continue to give help of this character to the hill areas. We shall be discussing the details with the farmers' representatives and will be laying schemes before the House in due course.
I regard the next Clause, which deals with the Farm Improvement Scheme, as the most important in the Bill. It is also what calls for the biggest sum of money, for we are proposing to pay an extra £35 million into the Farm Improvement Scheme, which, with the money already available, will mean a total Exchequer contribution to the capital development of the industry of £90 million. When Lord Amory introduced the scheme for a 10-year period in 1957, the Act provided for funds of up to £55 million, of which £50 million was voted outright, and the final £5 million would be subject to an Order, which is also before the House today.
The original estimate was in 1957 and, of course, had to be a speculative figure. There were a lot of arrears of building and improvements, both as the result of the war years and the difficulties of building, and the like, after the war, and it was necessarily speculative what the extent of the call on this money was to be. In fact, in the first five years £31 million was paid and a further £15 million was committed on approved applications, making a total of £46 million. Taking account of recent applications the time has came to call for the final £5 million of the original allocation, and that is why we are seeking the approval of the House for this in tonight's Order.
The response to the scheme has certainly exceeded our expectations. In each of the past five years there have been some 40,000 to 50,000 applications for farm improvement schemes, and up to now nearly 200,000 schemes have been approved. When one remembers that the Government's contributions have been matched by owners' contributions——

Mr. Frederick Peart: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean 200,000 different schemes?

Mr. Soames: Two hundred thousand different schemes in the five years.

Mr. Peart: Yes, in the five years.

Mr. Soames: Of course, some individual holdings have had more than one scheme, but there have been nearly 200,000 schemes altogether.
When one remembers that the Government's contributions have been matched by the owners' contributions of two-thirds of the cost of the improvements, it means that, through this channel alone, there has been an injection of £140 million of capital investment into the industry since 1957, of which one-third has been found in grant and two-thirds by the owners.
The House will want to know how the money has been spent. Rather more than 80 per cent. has been invested in now or improved buildings. The rest has been taken up with improvements to farm roads and bridges, the provision of electricity, and a variety of minor items like fencing and sewage disposal. Of the 80 per cent. which has gone on buildings one-third has been for grain and fodder storage, one-quarter for milking parlours and other dairy buildings, and one-fifth on buildings for the rearing and fattening of cattle. Indeed, wherever one may travel in the countryside one sees the benefits which this scheme has brought.
The White Paper of November, 1956, on long-term assurances for agriculture said:
The industry must seek progressively to reduce its working costs and so require less support against the effects of low market prices if it is to make its full contribution to the national economy.
That must remain our purpose and intention. More, perhaps, than any other single Measure this scheme has helped farmers in this country to put themselves into a stronger competitive position, and that is why the Government have thought it right to make a further substantial provision for the scheme to continue.

Mr. J. T. Price: Before the right hon. Gentleman goes into detail, will he say whether his Ministry has any record of the number of farms which change hands and are sold at inflated prices after the Government money has been injected into

them? I am not saying this critically, in the sense that I disapprove of the money going to improve our farms. I do not. However, I should like to know what record is kept of the capital appreciation, created by public money, of farm buildings and farm hereditaments which are then sold at inflated prices to new buyers. If that is the case—and I believe that it is going on to a considerable extent—these private individuals are actually creaming off the value created by public money which has been injected into the industry.

Mr. Soames: We do not keep any records—we have no power to keep records—of exchanges of property, but I think that what the hon. Gentleman suggests is not the case. I do not know, but it is hard to see that this scheme would have the effect that he says, in as much as an individual can buy a farm, if he wishes, which has not received grant, and still get the grant to do the improvement himself. So I do not think that it has the effect of raising to any undue extent the value of the land. What it has done, I think, is to improve very considerably the abilities of our farms to be more competitive.

Mr. Frank Tomney: In supporting the contention of my hon. Friend the Member of Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), if a person, having received his grant, has built up an efficient farm, then it has got a better marketable value, with the assistance of Government money, for the owner if he sells it.

Mr. Soames: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that if one spends capital on putting up buildings on a farm one can get the whole of that in return if one sells the land—just adding the full capital value of the buildings on to the value of the land—he is much mistaken. That is not the way transactions in land turn out.
There are two proposals in the Bill relating to fertiliser subsidies. The Agriculture (Fertiliser) Act, 1952, allows us to pay subsidy only to persons occupying agricultural land who apply the fertiliser to the soil. This cuts out, first, some commercial mushroom growers and, second, producers of orchard crops and others who use foliar sprays, which is a relatively new technique in which


the nutrient is absorbed through the leaves rather than through the soil. We do not want to see technicalities of this kind deprive either class of producer of the benefits of these subsidies, and Clause 4 will bring them within the scheme.
Clause 5 fulfils pledges which have been given to the House and to the Public Accounts Committee to strengthen our financial controls in relation to fertilisers. It will give us power to register merchants who deal in fertilisers and to inspect their books so as to check on subsidy transcations. Payment of subsidy will then be limited to fertilisers bought from merchants who are duly registered.

Mr. George Jeger: Will the right hon. Gentleman amplify Clause 5 a little? Is it true that this is introduced because of various loopholes which were discovered through a recent case in Yorkshire?

Mr. Soames: No, it is not because of any recent case. This arises directly out of an examination carried out by the Public Accounts Committee some while ago and our undertaking that this should be included in agricultural legislation when the moment was opportune.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Is Clause 5 intended to relate to supplying merchants only, or to manufacturers as well?

Mr. Soames: It is concerned with merchants who deal directly with farmers.
Clauses 6 to 9 make statutory provision for grants previously paid under the annual Appropriation Act. They include the help we have given for some time to the Agricultural Central Co-operative Association and the Welsh Agricultural Organisation Society in their efforts to promote agricultural co-operation, and also the grants which we decided after the 1961 Price Review to make in respect of buildings used by farmers' machinery syndicates, which had previously been excluded.
There is also included the £1½ million fund for research and development in marketing announced in this year's Review, and the Bill gives statutory provision for that as against resting on the

Appropriations Act. This scheme represents a new departure in Exchequer support, switching to marketing as distinct from production. The initiative here lies, as it must, with the industry itself. The scheme is being administered by an executive committee of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) is chairman. It is our hope that the Committee will have plenty of worth-while projects put to it by the industry which it can sponsor as suitable for Government grant.
In the White Paper which followed this year's Price Review, the Government also announced their intention of introducing two new schemes, one designed to encourage the production of winter keep in the livestock rearing areas and the other for the renovation of permanent grass. Clauses 10 to 12 of the Bill give the broad outlines of the schemes which we have in mind but provide for them to be introduced by Order. The House will, however, want to know, on the Second Reading of the Bill, what it is that we have in mind.
We intend to offer the new winter keep grant on an acreage basis as an alternative to the ploughing grant in upland areas which satisfy the test in Section 1 (1) of the Livestock Rearing Act, 1951. It would be paid annually on approved crops grown for winter keep for consumption on the farm, and all the normal fodder crops, such as oats, roots, kale, hay and silage, would be eligible. The rate would be settled at the Annual Review, but we have in mind about £2 per acre. The first crops to be covered by the scheme would be those grown to provide winter keep for the winter of 1964.
Then there is the grassland renovation scheme. There has been substantial improvement in our temporary grass in the post-war years and the ploughing grants have contributed to this. We now want to give greater encouragement to the possibilities which certainly exist of getting equally striking results from our permanent grass. What needs to be done on different farms obviously depends on many factors. The scheme that we have in mind will provide that the farmer should have technical advice, as an essential feature of the scheme, on the most appropriate form of treatment for his grassland, and this will come from the


local advisory officer. In a typical case it might be agreed that the treatment should include applying lime and fertilisers, control of weeds and rushes, heavy harrowing or, possibly, even killing the existing sward by new techniques and then over-seeding.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, nor would all the items necessarily feature in any individual programme. We have in mind paying a fiat rate grant of, say, £4 per acre towards the cost of a thorough-going programme which would cost the farmer at least £6 an acre, not counting the cost of lime and fertilisers which, of course, would have to be added on top of that, and which would probably form an integral part of the scheme. Decisions on the rate of grant will be taken in the context of next year's Price Review.
In the meantime, we shall be having further discussions with the National Farmers' Union on this and other details of the scheme. The autumn of 1963 is the earliest that we could begin to operate a scheme of this kind, and before this an Order will be laid giving all the details.
Grass is the most important of our farm crops. Hitherto, direct Government encouragement has been directed at ley farming through the ploughing grants. These two new schemes will extend the range by giving grants towards the improvement of our permanent grass and, in the hill areas, for grass crops and other fodder for winter keep.
I now come to the four Clauses which deal with land and land tenure. It has, as the House knows, been the policy of the Government for some years to dispose of land in State ownership. The result is that. whereas at one time the Agricultural Land Commission and its Welsh Sub-Commission were looking after nearly ¼million acres, they now have little more than 100,000 acres, and more than two-thirds of that is in actual course of disposal, either by transfer to the Forestry Commission or by sale. This includes the Glanllyn Estate, of 36,000 acres, which is being sold to a consortium of tenants.

Mr. Peart: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much has been transferred to the Forestry Commission?

Mr. Soames: I cannot say what will be the position over the full period in respect of the 100,000 acres left. We are transferring the land to the Forestry Commission as and when the Commission wishes to take it over for planting. Thus, the land remains in the hands of the Land Commission until it is near the time when it can be included in the Forestry Commission's planting programme. Consequently, I cannot give an estimate of the yearly transfer of land from the Land Commission to the Forestry Commission.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: Has any been transferred at all?

Mr. Soames: Yes, a considerable acreage has been transferred from the Land Commission to the Forestry Commission, and there will be more in the future. As I was saying, of the 100,000 acres remaining in the possession of the Land Commission, 36,000 acres are in the Glanllyn Estate, and this land is being sold to a consortium of tenants.

Mr. J. T. Price: It is a shame.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Member thinks that it is a shame that this land should be sold to the consortium of tenants rather than owned by the State. But we do not regard it as a duty of the State to farm land. We think it better that the land should be owned by these tenants. We hope that the deal will go through and be of benefit to them.

Mr. Price: We understand the difference of approach between the two sides of the House, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will try to justify the fact that, when more and more public money is being poured into the agricultural industry, for reasons which seem good and sufficient to the Government—I believe that the figure is £4,000 million !since 1947—he is selling this public property. I do not see how these two propositions can be squared. We do not do it in any other nationalised industry.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman said "any other nationalised industry." I dare say that he would like to see a great deal of Britain as nationalised land.

Mr. Price: I would like to see all the land nationalised.

Mr. Soames: This is the fundamental difference between the two sides of the House. We do not think that it is right for the State to own land which it is not necessary for it to own.
This process of the sale of agricultural land has been going on for a long time. My predecessors have followed this policy and have announced sales of land held by the Commission from time to time. Now the process has reached the point when, having started with about 250,000 acres, we are down to 100,000, two-thirds of which is in the course of disposal, so the time is near when there will no longer be need for these high level and independent commissions.
Indeed, the Estimates Committee took the view that, once the Glanllyn Estate had been disposed of, there would be insufficient justification for carrying the cost of retaining the Welsh SubCommision, and even, it thought, the Land Commission itself. I have, therefore, thought it right to take powers in the Bill to wind up both these bodies by Order when the time comes. The Bill does not wind up these bodies, but gives power to the Government to do so when, in their view, the amount of land held is small enough not to warrant their continuance.
Since 1948, when they were set up, both the Commission and the Welsh Sub-Commission have done a splendid job of managing this considerable acreage and have earned our gratitude and that of the tenants of the estate. I am sure that the House would like to join in paying tribute to the work done by the members of the Commission, and especially to the chairman, Sir Frederick Burrows, and to his deputy, Colonel J. C. Wynne Finch, who is chairman of the Welsh Sub-Commission.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: The right hon. Gentleman said that there were now 100,000 acres left, two-thirds of which are in process of disposal. He referred to 36,000 acres being disposed of to a consortium. To whom is the rest being disposed of?

Mr. Soames: Part of it will go to the Forestry Commission. It is land that is being held for the Commission, being farmed at the moment by tenants under the aegis of the Land Commission, but

earmarked for forestry planting. It will be kept under farming until the Forestry Commission is ready to take it over.

Mr. Loughlin: The right hon. Gentleman says that one-third of the 100,000 acres is to be disposed of to the Forestry Commission and one-third is to be disposed of to the consortium of tenants. What is the intention in relation to the final one-third?

Mr. Soames: I cannot go into details now, but, for instance, on the South Coast, one stretch of land is divided into a number of small plots. The titles to the land are hidden behind a veil of obscurity and we do not feel able to dispose of it because we do not know who were the original owners. There are other examples of acreages of land which we do not feel able to dispose of and these will remain in the Government's hands and be administered by the Agricultural Land Service of my Department. But the amount will not be sufficient to warrant continuance of these high level commissions.

Mr. John Morris: What will happen to the sitting tenants who are farming land held by the Land Commission when that land is transferred to the Forestry Commission? Will they be protected?

Mr. Soames: When the land is handed over to the Forestry Commission, and trees are planted, it will no longer be farmed. But that is nothing new. It has happened before and the situation is known by the tenants.
Clause 17 will help a tenant to know where he stands with any alleged breach of his tenancy agreement which might form the basis for a notice to quit. The broad effect is to prevent a landlord from exploiting loopholes in the present legislation and thus using it, not for its intended purpose of getting repairs done, but as a means of bringing about the eviction of his tenants. The proposals have the agreement and, indeed, support, of both the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union.
Clause 18 is a specifically Scottish point. It offers a fairer formula for valuing any "bound" sheep stocks which an outgoing tenant must leave behind for


the landlord or the incoming tenant. I understand that, because of the way in which the money values were fixed in 1946, they now give about half the scope for adjustment which was then intended by Parliament. The Clause therefore replaces cash figures with percentages equivalent to their original value.
Clause 19 covers the whole United Kingdom and puts farmers on the same footing as other business occupiers in the matter of compensation when displaced from land purchased under compulsory powers. This fulfils the undertaking given by my predecessor in May, 1960, when my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) withdrew his Private Member's Bill which was designed to have a similar effect.
Hon. Members will recall that I announced the Government's new policy on fowl pest to the House on 18th July last. At the end of the financial year we shall be dropping the present system of slaughter and compensation in England and Wales and will depend on the use of dead vaccine to control the disease. We intend to distribute subsidised vaccine at a cost of up to £1 million a year for a period of two years after the vaccine has become available in all areas, and we hope that during that time all producers will come to use and rely on vaccine. Clause 14 makes the statutory provision for this.
As I told the House in answer to a Question on Monday, we have made a start in the areas worst hit by this scourge and hope to have covered the whole of England and Wales by the turn of the year. While Scotland remains virtually free from this disease, we shall continue to rely there on the slaughter policy.
Clause 13, dealing with the control of animal diseases, will enable us to deal more effectively with carcasses and other materials—including fodder—which might be carriers of disease like foot-and-mouth and swine fever and will give permanent statutory backing for the compensation for infected carcasses and other carriers which has hitherto been carried under the Appropriation Acts.
Clause 15 deals with fee-charging powers for agricultural services, many of which have become quite out of line with

present practices and costs, but which, as we explained to the Public Accounts Committee, need legislation to put matters right. I am proposing to give up a general fee-charging power which dates back to an Act of 1868. The result will be that the Minister of Agriculture will no longer be obliged to charge for services like appointing arbitrators or regulating commons which we would nowadays regard as a normal public charge, in the same way, for example, as planning consent. On the other hand, the Clause will remove the statutory limits on fees for work such as sire licensing where present charges are quite out of line with modern costs. This will enable us to put up the charges to those who use this licensing to a cost which is more in line with modern times.
Clause 20 will deal with an anomaly which has arisen because of technical developments in the cooling and storage of eggs. The Clause is necessary to let producers and distributors take advantage of these improvements so as to market fresh eggs in the best condition without risk of falling foul of the law and without, at the same time, in any way weakening the protection which the consumer has against eggs which have been kept in a cold store being sold as fresh.
Clause 21 deals with sugar. At the end of 1961, we made a change in the pricing arrangements for sugar in the United Kingdom in order to discourage the import of foreign refined sugar and so to help British refiners and their Commonwealth suppliers. As a result, we increased the Sugar Board's surcharge. The action was aimed at foreign sugar, and it fell also on sugar from the Irish Republic. The members of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement have been compensated for the increased surcharge, but the increased surcharge on sugar from the Irish Republic, largely in manufactured foodstuffs, amounting to at least £150,000 a year, has been accruing to the Sugar Board. Consequently, Irish receipts from sales of sugar in Britain were reduced by a similar amount. The proposed agreement will broadly restore the balance by a purchase of Irish sugar at a fixed price, and on its resale the Sugar Board will incur a loss of about £150,000 a year.
The purpose of the Clause is to empower the Board to undertake these transactions. The Sugar Agreement with the Irish Republic contains other provisons of benefit to both sides. We shall secure a new outlet for Commonwealth sugar in the Irish Republic, and supplies of sugar to the United Kingdom from the Irish Republic will be restricted to a somewhat lower level than in recent years. At the same time, we have been able to arrange for the Irish Sugar Co. to handle the produce from a field trial of sugar beet production in Northern Ireland.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this will not mean a reduction in the production and shipping of sugar from Great Britain to Ireland, either North or South?

Mr. Soames: It is difficult for me to give an assurance about what will happen to the movement of trade in sugar in specific quantities as between one country and another. What the agreement does is to limit the amount of refined sugar which will be sent from Southern Ireland into the United Kingdom, an amount which has been running at 12,000 or 13,000 tons over the last two or three years, to 10,000 tons. It also ensures that the Irish Republic will be buying Commonwealth sugar in future instead of foreign sugar for its needs over and above its own crop, except where it is exporting to countries other than ourselves.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: If the right hon. Gentleman can clear my mind absolutely on this issue, I shall be very happy about it. On Monday, he said:
Irish sugar has been coming in at the rate of about 12,000 tons recently and under this agreement it is limited to 10,000 tons"[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1962; Vol. 667, c. 802.]
Is that in reference to the whole of the United Kingdom, which includes Northern Ireland, or is it strictly confined to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Soames: It will be coming into Northern Ireland, but this is a figure for the whole of the United Kingdom and is for refined sugar as opposed to manufactured goods with a content of sugar.

Mr. Henry Clark: Will my right hon. Friend comment on

that part of the agreement which encourages sugar beet production in Northern Ireland and which may eventually lead to full-scale sugar beet production in Northern Ireland with no necessity for imports from Scotland?

Mr. Soames: Far be it from me to interfere between Ulster and Scotland, but there has long been a strong feeling in Ulster that the land there is capable of producing sugar beet. It is not certain by any means, but, as a result of this agreement, there is to be an experimental field trial and the sugar will be taken by the Irish Republic. We will have to see how the trials go.

Mr. Clark: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that if the trials are successful the Government will consider investigating the possibility of a full-scale sugar-beet industry in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Soames: Let us jump our hurdles as they come. Arranging trials is a move forward, but it would be premature to give any assurance until the results of the trials are known.
I have set out to give the House an indication of the scope of the Bill which, over the next five years, will involve Government expenditure totalling some £78 million. Plainly, hon. Members will want to give it close examination in Committee but, looking at the Bill as a whole, I hope that the House will agree that its provisions will help the industry and that it is a worthwhile addition to our agricultural legislation.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: The Minister has dealt fully with many of the Bill's details. It was obviously right and proper that he should inform the House of the financial and administrative effects of many of the matters which have been raised and which will have to be carefully scrutinised in Committee. I can assure him that the Opposition will examine carefully the effects of each Clause and will put forward necessary criticisms constructively.
I want to deal with the purpose of the Bill. On a Second Reading, we can become too involved with the minutae of a Bill, but one wants to know what are the principles behind Government policy, why they have introduced the


Bill, its full effect and how it plays its part in the structure of Government support for agriculture.
The Bill's purpose is obviously to continue aid to agriculture and to lengthen the period of aid. The Minister has mentioned the figure of £78 million which will be covered by the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts, 1946 to 1956. The most important part of the aid, as he rightly emphasised, is the £35 million under the Agriculture Act, 1957, Part II of Which relates to farm improvements. There is then the aid given for the use of fertilisers which is covered by the 1952 legislation.
I do not want to become too involved in arguments about mushroom growers, or why fertiliser grants should be improved, or whether we should give aid to the use of foliage sprays so that certain people can benefit. The Minister made his case, and in any event those are matters which can be examined in detail in Committee. I wish to examine the Government's general approach. We are here concerned with the principle of giving subsidies and grants of various kinds.
I support this principle. Obviously, promises have been made by the Government; indeed, the grants in aid for marketing research, and the aid for farming syndicates, which has not been fully dealt with by the Minister today, were all foreshadowed in previous White Papers. Obviously, the country is concerned about the size of the Exchequer contribution, and there may be many hon. Members in the House today who may comment on this.
This Bill increases the size of this aid. We have only to look at the White Paper (Cmnd. 1658)—the Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees for 1962–63—to see in detail the aid which is to be given by grants and subsidies mentioned in this legislation by the Government. Looking at the last White Paper for 1961–62 as compared with 1960–61, we can see that there has been an increase. I am not going into the details, but the grants and subsidies are now running, or are estimated to run, for 1961–62 at over £107 million, as against a figure of £104·5 million for 1960–61. This will cover the fertiliser subsidies, which we shall be discussing in detail

later, ploughing grants, grants for the improvement of livestock rearing land, the hill cattle and sheep subsidies, grants for farm improvements and so on.
This is a formidable figure and, therefore, it is right and proper when we are discussing a Bill of this kind that we should examine the main principles of the policy of the Government. We can spend too much time in a Second Reading debate discussing the minutiae of this Bill, which provides £78 million of new capital to be injected into the industry. This is a large amount of money to be added to the support which is already given, and, inevitably, we must consider the principles of the Government's policy.
I know that there has been considerable controversy over the deficiency payments, which are not affected by this legislation, and over the production grants, which are affected by this legislation. The argument has gone on time and time again throughout all our agricultural debates, ever since the passing of the 1947 Act, and of those Acts which have been mentioned by the Minister today. Indeed, even today, by extending the effect of this legislation, this argument will still go on, and I am certain that the arguments will be heard again in our discussion today.
I want to know what is the Government's policy. Who is helped by these grants? Is it the producer, the consumer or the nation? I myself accept them in principle. I have always argued, even against some of my hon. Friends from time to time, that in the end production grants, by improving the efficiency of British agriculture, as I trust this legislation will do, helps not only the producer but the consumer.
I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) shakes his head, but I believe this to be fundamental. I know that this was a fundamental principle of the policy which my right hon. Friends on this side of the House pursued when they had responsibility, and, indeed, it has been a fundamental principle of the policy of the party for which I have the honour to speak. We have always argued in principle that, by benefiting the producer and helping him to increase his efficiency, by creating a prosperous


and viable British agriculture, it will, in the end, help the consumer. I emphasise that, and, therefore, when examining the details of this legislation, as we must, Clause by Clause— and I am not going into too much detail, because this is a matter for Committee—we must bear in mind this major principle.
How does this Bill now presented by the Minister help agriculture generally? How does it improve its efficiency? Will it help, in particular, the small farmer, who is an important person in our agricultural community, and also the hill farmer? I am rather prejudiced here, because in my own constituency in Cumberland there are many hill farmers. These people will look carefully at this Bill and its effect, and therefore we have to ask ourselves this question. Will they be helped, and will they be able to make their own units viable, to improve their efficiency, and, in turn, by their efforts produce more efficiently and in the end help the nation? I think it is right and proper that we should ask this question.

Mr. Loughlin: Would my hon. Friend also accept that it might be a good idea to see how far the large farmers will benefit?

Mr. Peart: Actually, I think my hon. Friend has anticipated my thoughts, and I hope that he will give me support for what I am going to say. We must scrutinise very carefully how these grants are administered. Much has been made of the improvements in the operation of the fertiliser payments. Obviously, we are anxious to know how the further payments to be made under this Bill are to be administered. I only say to my hon. Friend that I accept his view. We must scrutinise the Bill carefully, and it will be his job as well as mine in Committee to examine the incidence of the payments made not only to the small farmers, but to the medium and larger farmers, and see how they are affected.
If I may remind my hon. Friend, we have over 523,000 farmers in this country—316,000 in England, 55,000 in Wales, 71,000 in Scotland and 81,000 in Northern Ireland—and the majority have farms of under 50 acres. The majority of the farmers in this country are actually small farmers, and if my hon. Friend will bear

this in mind he will see that, when we are discussing, in the main, aid of this kind, we should consider generally the small farmer.

Mr. Tomney: My hon. Friend is deploying his 0argument with great clarity, and I understand the position he is trying to establish, but his argument would be valid were it not for the existence of guaranteed prices and deficiency payments. This is where he goes wrong.

Mr. Peart: I will come to that point. My hon. Friend is an enthusiast for the European Economic Community, and, if we go into the Common Market under a common agricultural policy, under Dr. Mansholt's regime, which he approves so much and is so enthusiastic about, hill farming can be subsidised, so I hope that he will bear in mind that the argument for further aid has been supported in principle by the party which he supports, and that it is right and proper that we should examine in detail, and, indeed, critically if necessary, though in a constructive way, the incidence of the subsidy and also its present administration.
My hon. Friend will also remember that he and I took part in a debate on agriculture two or three years ago, when I argued that there should be a special Select Committee, such as we have for the nationalised industries, which would examine constructively expenditure in the sphere of agriculture and the problems of the industry. I think that he and I are in agreement, and that he appreciates that we are not disagreeing on the principle of support, but merely arguing about its administration, and certainly its scope.
The Bill seeks to continue these payments for a considerable time. I believe that this legislation could be affected by decisions at Brussels. I want to know from the Minister how this Bill will be affected by decisions at Brussels, or by an acceptance of the existing regulations of the Common Market in the sphere of agricultural policy. In other words, what I am trying to say is that I understand, from what I have read and heard in discussions with those individuals who support the Economic Community, there is still uncertainty about the use of State aid, despite what I said about the views of Dr. Mansholt.
I do not wish to embarrass the Minister. I merely want to stiffen his back. Unlike the Tory conference, I want him to negotiate from strength and not from weakness. The administration of the Bill can be affected by the common Market negotiations. We merely hide away from the problem if we do not recognise that. I am suspicious of the Minister. He is as enthusiastic about the Common Market as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North. He talks of a managed market for agriculture. When he welcomed the cereal regulations he said that a managed market gave certain guarantees.
Will the production grants contained in this Bill and which will he extended, such as the farm improvement grants and hill farming subsidies, be affected by entry into the Common Market? These form a major part of State aid. They are running at over £100 million a year and make a very important contribution to British agriculture. Will the Minister insist—I have used that word before in another sphere of agriculture—in the Common Market negotiations that this legislation, which I admit merely extends other legislation, should not be affected by the negotiations in Brussels? We should have an answer to that.
I wish to quote from an interview given by Dr. Mansholt which was published in the Daily Telegraph. He said:
There are, of course, problems for hill farmers and others in similar categories, but these can be dealt with by subsidies.
Dr. Mansholt also talked about subsidies in another sphere of agriculture. There is, therefore, some sympathy from the man at Brussels who has a major responsibility for the Common Market.
Let my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North and others who talk about State aid remember that in the six countries—in West Germany, Italy, France—considerable State aid is given to agriculture which competes against our own agriculture. These principles of State aid which have been under attack and which could be attacked later and which we on this side support have given a measure of security and have helped to build up efficiency in the agricultural industry. There are countries in the European Economic Community which have given considerable State aid to their agricultural industry over a long time. We should bear this in mind.
Another important matter is the use of production grants in the Bill. What is the Government's policy? Have they a policy? Does the Bill show a switch of policy? I do not want to appear too pedantic, but I hope that hon. Members and the Minister have read an excellent book produced by the University of Glasgow Social and Economic Studies and published by Allen and Unwin called "The Economics of Subsidising Agriculture". The author is Mr. Gavin McGrowe. This book has received a very good Press in all agricultural journals. One chapter of it deals with the cost of agricultural support. The author examines a statement made in this House recently concerning the incidence of price guarantees, production grants, improvement grants and all State aid from 1954–55 up to 1961. Since 1954 price guarantees have risen from £139·6 million to £150·5 million and production grants from £50·4 million to £103·4 million. Improvement grants have risen since 1957–58 from £0·2 million to £7·9 million. In other words, there has been a change of emphasis during this period. Support is growing, and it seems to be part of deliberate Government policy.
Are the Government working to a deliberate policy? Have they got a policy on production grants? Is this increase accidental or fortuitous, or have the Minister and the Treasury a purpose in mind? This question has been asked by many responsible agricultural journalists in our leading farming journals. Are the Government seeking to switch State aid from the form of deficiency payments to the form of production grants that I have mentioned? That is the conclusion of the author of this stimulating book on agriculture. He says:
This change in emphasis appears to be deliberate policy.
The Government's policy may be right, but we should know what their policy is and how they seek to support agriculture in future.
This is the background to the Bill. These are the principles which we should be debating rather than getting too involved in minor detail which should be discussed in Committee.
I accept the Bill in principle, although I am critical of it here and there. I


hope that its purpose is to increase efficiency. We are now in National Productivity Year. It has been argued that we must have increased productivity and more production in agriculture. Will the Bill improve the efficiency of British agriculture? Will it give a fair return to the producer? Will it benefit the consumer and the nation? These are three important questions.
Does the Bill give a glimmer of the Government's long-term policy? I am not sure what is the Government's policy. Right hon. Members opposite who often spoke in opposition when a Labour Government were in power administering agricultural policy chided the Government for not having a long-term policy. What is the present Government's long-term policy on production grants, marketing and all the other spheres of agricultural activity dealt with in the Bill? Does the Bill give a glimmer of the Government's long-term policy especially in relation to production? We ask the farmer to produce more and be more efficient, but under the present system there are disincentives to produce.
I remember spokesmen from the Front Bench opposite asking a Labour Minister, "What is the size of our agricultural industry? What security is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to offer? What will be the production in the years to come?" These are questions which spokesmen from the party opposite used to put to Labour Ministers, and perhaps today we can have answers to them.
Clause 1 of the Bill increases the hill farming subsidy from £27 million to £30 million. Do the Government intend to extend the grant to develop hill farms comprehensively? I know that this question has been put to the Minister by the industry, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will deal with this when he winds up the debate. If these schemes are essential for the development of the hill farming areas, it may well be that the time limit should be extended, and we want to know the Government's policy in this respect. Is it the intention to extend grants to redevelop hill farms comprehensively?
I do not quarrel with Clauses 2 and 3. This part of the Bill, which deals with the improvement of agricultural land, and

makes special provisions for building, and so on, is the most important financial aspect of this Measure. What is the Government's long-term policy in relation to farm improvements and amalgamations?

Mr. William Yates: What does the hon. Gentleman mean when he talks about developing hill farms "comprehensively"? I have asked my hon. Friends from Scotland about this, and we have hill farming in Shropshire. What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "comprehensively"? I do not comprehend.

Mr. Peart: I am sorry if I have not made it clear. A subsidy may be paid to a farmer to carry not only one improvement scheme which he has in mind, but several schemes concurrently. Also, a scheme for, say, the improvement of drainage may affect more than one farm. Would such a scheme be covered by this part of the Bill? I hope that the Minister will reply to this point, and I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates).

Mr. Yates: I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Peart: Clause 4 deals with fertiliser subsidies. I do not quarrel with this proposal, but will it be administered properly? Select Committees have considered the fertiliser industry, and the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) has asked Questions about it, and no doubt if he catches the eye of the Chair he will have something to say about this Clause. We shall, of course, scrutinise it carefully in Committee.
I regard Clause 6 as extremely important, because here, in relation to farm syndicates, we are to have an extension of co-operation.
I also regard Clauses 8 and 9 as important because grants are to be given to such bodies as the Agricultural Central Co-operative Association for England and the Welsh Agricultural Organisation Society. These are fine bodies, and I support this form of producer co-operation. In Cumberland we have one of the largest producer cooperatives in Europe, and I am anxious that bodies of this kind should be encouraged in the work they do. I


therefore welcome this part of the Bill because it fulfils a promise that was made at the time of the Price Review, but I come back to my original question. What is the Government's long-term policy in relation to marketing? What do the Government intend to do about horticulture. Do they intend to adopt a policy to deal with this extremely important industry? It represents 9 per cent. of our total agricultural production. In 1960–61 farm gate horticultural production was in the region of £133 million. It is therefore right and proper that we should ask the Government what they intend to do in relation to this Clause which deals with horticultural marketing.
If we go into the Common Market, our horticultural industry may have to face the full blast of European competition. Is it the intention of the Government to be serious about marketing? Does this Clause go far enough? Are the grants to the bodies which I have mentioned and the grants for research sufficient? I do not think that they are, especially when one remembers that we are facing a major crisis in the horticulture industry.
The Minister will soon be presenting an Order dealing with the Horticultural Marketing Council. This body has failed in the sense that it has not been supported, and the Minister has made a public pronouncement on this subject. What do the Government intend to do in the future? There has been a breakdown in marketing. Do the Government intend to take the initiative to improve the position? Is it the Government's intention to give some new body some executive authority on the lines for which we asked when we discussed the Horticulture Bill?
When we discuss Clauses 8 and 9 in detail, we shall no doubt be told by the Minister that we should leave questions of efficient marketing and co-operation in agriculture and horticulture to the industries. He has said this on many occasions when dealing with marketing issues. Is that his view today? Is that the reply we shall receive from the Secretary of State for Scotland, or does the Minister really intend to take the initiative in this matter?
It is not sufficient to say that a few thousand pounds have been given to various

organisations for research. The Minister knows we do not need research to tell us that something is wrong. There is a crisis in the industry and the Government must act to deal with it. This crisis exists not only in the horticultural industry but in meat marketing and other spheres. Indeed, the producers have already submitted positive proposals for dealing with the present situation. Can we have an assurance that the Government will take the marketing side of the industry seriously? What is the Government's policy with regard to horticulture? In France, under the Monnet Plan, the State is doing a great deal to help the horticultural industry, by creating new markets for it. Our system is out of date. Do we need research to discover this? What is the purpose of this Clause? Is it merely a polite sop to the industry, or does the Minister seriously intend to do something about this? I have a feeling that at present he is really a Minister of quiescence or acquiescence.
It is no good the Minister chuntering to himself. He must appreciate that the industry is extremely concerned about the present position, and, whether we go into the Common Market or not, I suggest that this problem should have priority No. 1. Although I appreciate that this Bill is important, I would still like to know what is the Government's long-term policy with regard to this problem.

Sir David Robertson: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about horticulture, but surely a transformation has taken place in this industry in recent years by the development of the frozen food industry which takes massive supplies of all kinds of vegetables, and some fruits, off the market? I remember when I was a youngster coming to London during the glut periods and seeing headlines in the papers about farmers getting less than what it cost them to produce their goods. But this is a thing of the past. I do not see why this system of preserving goods should not be extended to other commodities, but the responsibility rests on the horticultural industry to put its own house in order.

Mr. Peart: I agree that the industry itself should do something. I am not arguing that it should take no action. Nevertheless, there is a crisis. I have


mentioned markets which are out of date. I do not want to go too far on this point; that is something that we shall deal with in Committee. It may be that this research will enable the Ministry and other bodies to conduct a proper survey of existing markets. I am sure that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) agrees with me that our markets, with a few exceptions—Sheffield is one—are out of date. Their arrangements are higgledy-piggledy. They are obsolete, and need drastic overhaul.
I was trying to point out how much was happening in this context in France. Recently, a very powerful producer delegation from this country visited France and Western Europe in order to study European marketing arrangements. Those who were concerned with horticulture have come back agreeing with my view that we are lagging behind. I point that out merely because of the possibility of this Government making a decision as a result of which European horticultural regulations would apply to this country. The effects could be disastrous if we were not prepared. It is important for the House to probe the Government in order to ascertain what is to happen. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland was with me on this point. I have had him with me on fishing problems, when we have argued constructively on certain points, and I would have thought that he would support me in saying that we need improved marketing.
Practically everybody accepts the need for it, but the Minister says that it is a job for the industry, and that he is not going to do anything about it.

Mr. W. Yates: Mr. W. Yates indicated dissent.

Mr. Peart: It is no good the hon. Member shaking his head. The Minister is on record as saying that.

Mr. Yates: Not today.

Mr. Peart: Not today—of course not. But that is why I want the Secretary of State to tell us something about this.
I do not want to monopolise the time of the House. I will leave the question of winter keep to the many other hon. Members who will wish to refer to it. I think that Clause 10 will be accepted

in principle, together with Clause 11, which deals with grassland renovation—although both Clauses will be examined carefully in Committee. Clause 13 is acceptable, as is Clause 14, dealing with fowl pest vaccine. We support the policy introduced by this Clause. It was inevitable, because of the breakdown in the previous policy, which resulted in excessive compensation. The Clause follows the recommendation of the Plant Committee. This is a part of the Bill which we certainly support.
I now come to a controversial matter —the dissolution of the Agricultural Land Commission, under Clause 16. Here the Government are being doctrinaire. The Land Commission was set up in 1947 by the then Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Tom Williams. I remember his speech in the Second Reading debate on the Agriculture Bill on 27th January, 1947. It was the view of the Government in those days that we should create some instrument to bring into efficient agricultural production land which could not be efficiently farmed by private individuals. We had in mind Romney Marshes and large areas in the Fens, and we argued that there was need for a body such as the Land Commission.
Throughout our discussions on the 1947 Bill some hon. Members opposite attacked the creation of the Commission. The then Government gave the Opposition an opportunity to argue the matter in detail and, broadly speaking, even the Opposition came to the conclusion that, in principle, the Land Commission could serve a useful purpose. I believe that, over a long period, this Government have sought to restrict the activities of the Commission. They have never liked it and now, as shown by the reply to the question raised by my hon. Friend earlier, they are seeking to shed off land to farmers, either in a consortium or individually. They are also going to give land to the Forestry Commission.
I am sorry that the Commission is to go. It is a useful body, which could have served a useful purpose in the future. At one period it farmed nearly 250,000 acres, but it now farms approximately only 100,000 acres. I still believe that in many ways a body of this kind could do much good in England and Wales. For instance, there is some land


which private individuals could not possibly bring into agricultural production but which could be farmed by a body of this kind, at least acting as an agency. I strongly criticise the Minister for his action in this matter, and I can assure him that we shall have much more to say about it in Committee.

Mr. Percy Browne: The hon. Member says that the Government are being doctrinaire in this case, and he instances as one of the reasons for his believing this the fact that the Government are selling land to tenants. Is he against selling land to tenants in principle?

Mr. Peart: I am not against it in principle. I am saying that this body was created to bring into use land which could not be farmed by individual or private tenants. I am not arguing the principle. When the 1947 Bill was introduced we argued that it was a good thing to set up a public body of this kind, and even hon. Members who spoke from the then Opposition Front Bench agreed.
Many doctrinaire speeches were made by Conservative back benchers who did not like this idea. They talked about its being the thin end of the wedge of nationalisation. That was absurd. The Forestry Commission owns land on behalf of the State. Why should not the Land Commission? Why should we not have experimental farms owned or controlled by such a body? Behind the action of the Minister I feel sure that there is prejudice. I am sure that he is acting for doctrinaire reasons, and I am sorry that he is doing so. However, we will argue this matter in detail in Committee.
I now turn to the question of sugar. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) raised this point yesterday, and I thought that he might have been here today. I am glad of the assurance that our Commonwealth producers will supply more sugar to the Irish Republic.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Member mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). In fairness to my hon. Friend, I must tell the hon. Member that my hon. Friend wrote me a letter telling me that he was very sorry that he would not be able to be here today as he had an important engagement outside the House that he had to fulfil.

Mr. Peart: That may be so. Nevertheless, I wish that he had been here. He did not send me a letter, and I did not know that he had an engagement. I referred to the fact that he asked a Question about the matter yesterday, and I thought that he was being very critical of the Minister in doing so. In this case I support the Minister. If this agreement helps Ireland—including Northern Ireland—and also our Commonwealth producers, I am all for it. If it means a better relationship between Eire and this country, that can only be to the good. We need a better relationship. I only wish Eire were back in the Commonwealth.
I apologise for having spoken for so long, but it is right that the House should discuss general principles. We have had very few opportunities to do so. In fact, this is the first major speech of the Minister on this matter. We had a debate on the increased Estimates over a year ago, but this is the first major piece of legislation that the Government have put forward. It is therefore right that hon. Members on both sides of the House should be able to discuss the effect of the Bill upon our agricultural production; whether it will increase efficiency; whether it will benefit the consumer; whether the taxpayers will get a fair return, and whether or not, in the end, the nation will benefit.
We support the Bill in principle, but we shall certainly criticise it constructively in Committee.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I very much welcome most of the provisions in the Bill. It certainly provides us with very varied fare, as, indeed, I suppose an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is bound to do. I do not think that that indicates any defect in my right hon. Friend's policy. After all, the agriculture of this country is very varied indeed. Our soil types are perhaps more varied within a small space and our farming and our market gardening conditions more varied than in many other countries in Europe.
I think that this Bill and its predecessors indicate a very genuine desire on the part of Her Majesty's Government to cater for special needs that may arise. I want this afternoon to concentrate my


remarks chiefly on the farm improvement grants provisions, because it is agreed, I believe, that they are among the most important. Here I wish to pay a tribute to the work being done already under the scheme. I think that when my then right hon. Friend, now Lord Amory, introduced this measure in 1957, he made a departure in agricultural policy which has had enormous effects throughout the country. He chose a method that would aid, abet and help on the agricultural revolution already taking place in the country. I think it is well to remember—one hon. Member opposite made reference to the fact—that this scheme was not only beneficial to the larger farmer, and I will come to that in a moment.
It is well to remember that the improvement made to farm roads, buildings and other fixed equipment on farms arising out of the scheme has not been merely of financial benefit to farmers; it has been of enormous benefit to farm workers, when one considers their conditions of work. Much of my life has been spent working in small, cramped farm buildings where everything had to be done by hand and where every item of farmyard manure had to be manhandled through a door constructed perhaps a century, or even a century and a half ago. The improvements which have come about in our farm fixed equipment have enabled mechanical handling to take place to a much larger extent and have not only allowed farm workers' conditions to be improved but have led to greatly improved safety in their work and contributed to the general comfort with which they can carry out their duties. I think that that is a side of the matter which is often overlooked.
There is one aspect of the farm improvement scheme which rather worries me. It is the question of the size of the farm which can benefit under the scheme. I think it is a fact that when one looks around the countryside at the new farm buildings, which are pretty obvious even from a distance—some, by the way, are not particularly attractive in their outward appearance—one sees that it is the farms which are already doing pretty well which have been able to make the most use of these grants.

That, in a way, is perhaps inevitable, but I think it is also a drawback to the scheme.
I do not accept by any means that the small farmer is going to disappear from the British farming system. I believe that he has a job to fulfil, and I very much want to see farms of all sizes in our countryside. I should like to think that the smaller farmers can participate in equal measure in these improvements outlined in the Bill.
I wish to mention to my right hon. Friend two classes of relatively small producers who, I think, are at a disadvantage. In the 1957 Act there is a provision concerning what a prudent landlord would provide. I think that this is a very necessary provision, because I do not want to see buildings put up which might prove to be white elephants because of the size of the holding involved.
There is also a provision about the minimum area of land that must go with the farm buildings, because, clearly, it is not desirable that an owner's factory units should be built up with virtually no land round them at all, and grant-aided into the bargain. There is a class of holding above that, I think, which is covered by the Small Farmers' Scheme itself, but which is below the minimum required by the Regulations and which under some circumstances—I do not say under all circumstances—ought really to have a grant for the improvement of its buildings. I say this because I think that the matter arises from the point of view of equity. It is very hard for the small man who wants to put up a building but who may be under the limit of acreage required when he sees a larger neighbour getting a grant which he cannot get. I ask my right hon. Friend to be kind enough to look at this side of the matter further, and I hope that we shall discuss it in Committee.
Quite apart from this very small but still whole-time category of farmers, I think that the small unit as a whole is under a drawback in making use of the farm improvement grants. I suppose that the larger farmer is in a better position to take advantage of these provisions. On top of that, of course, he obtains a considerable remission of taxation by way of the allowances over ten years in respect of the buildings which he puts up. I know that, equally, the small farmer can get the tax allowances if he is


making a profit, but very often his profit is not very much and, therefore, in order to bring him on a level with his larger counterpart I believe that he should receive a higher rate of grant on his improvements than that received by his larger neighbour. There may be those who violently disagree with this contention because they may think that the small unit is uneconomic anyhow. As I say, I am not always convinced of that and I am anxious that the man farming the smaller acreage of land shall not feel that he is being unfairly treated in this vital matter of improvement which he needs as much as anyone else, and perhaps rather more.
I do not want that criticism to outweigh the general praise that I wish to give to this part of the scheme in general. It is certainly not my intention to exaggerate the matter and to say that it is unduly weighted in favour of the larger farmer, but I think that there is some element of this to be seen in the way the scheme has worked up to now.
I wish to say a word or two about notices to quit and the special provisions made in the Bill to deal with the attaining of possession by a landlord in cases where bad husbandry is alleged. I am glad that there is to be a tightening of the procedure and the form in which the notice is given originally, and so on. I find myself a little disturbed about this matter. It is the wish of Parliament that reasonable security should be given to tenants, and there are landlords who watch these provisions about the conditions of husbandry very carefully so that they may be able to obtain possession of holdings by the strict application of the provisions relating to farming which is against the principles of good husbandry. I hope that I have understood aright the conditions contained in the Bill, and that it is not proposed that the task of deciding such cases shall be undertaken by arbitrators. I like the idea of this being a matter for the Agricultural Land Tribunal.
The Tribunal consists of a lawyer as the chairman and assessors who have had an agricultural training and are interested in agriculture. I have nothing against arbitrators, but I hope that these very delicate matters, involving a close contact with and a knowledge of agriculture, will not be decided by arbitrators in-

stead of the Agricultural Land Tribunal. That again is a matter which we can discuss during the Committee stage of the Bill.
I wish to comment on a matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart). He asked a series of complicated questions but did not attempt to provide any of the answers——

Mr. Peart: It is for the Government to answer.

Mr. Bullard: Well, I do not know about that. I think it is up to anyone who asks innumerable questions about the agricultural policy of the Government to provide a suggestion now and again.

Mr. Peart: Certainly. But it is the role of the Opposition to probe as well. If the hon. Gentleman needs some consolation I would remind him that it was the Opposition which raised the point about the arbitrators, which he is raising now, when this matter was discussed in detail in a Standing Committee.

Mr. Bullard: That is fair enough. I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman for his probing. But one appreciates an occasional indication of what the Opposition might consider an alternative plan. However, I do not wish to fall out with the hon. Gentleman, because I was about to follow the line which he pursued and endeavour to look at the special grants referred to in the Bill, and similar grants which were mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, in relation to the agricultural policy generally.
One must look at the whole thing together. These grants do not constitute a policy by themselves. But with the price arrangements which arise out of the February Review and so on, they provide a pretty complete policy, in my opinion, albeit a rather expensive one at the present time. I think that the improvement grants and the fertiliser grants, which are mentioned in the Bill, the hill farming grants and all the other special arrangements contribute greatly to the efficiency of farm production. One might hope that the deficiency payments bill might have been decreased because of them. But it may be said with truth that they have prevented that bill from becoming greater and so have


made a significant contribution in that direction.
The grants have been useful in providing money at the start of farming operations. So many things in the farming processes yield a return only after a long period. Many of the grants are available quite early on in the operation, and I believe that that is one reason why we hear less today about the shortage of capital for agriculture. These grants have enabled work to be undertaken for which the capital was forthcoming at the start of the operation. I think that in our existing system, therefore, the grants have played a very useful role from the point of view of finance.
I do not know for sure how they would fit into the Common Market arrangements. I do not want to go into that matter in great detail because, if I did so, I might be ruled out of order. But there may be some difficulty about fitting these grants into the agricultural picture which would be created if we join the Common Market. I do not think that any dictates on the part of Dr. Mansholt or anyone else would affect the matter. There would be other reasons which I will try very shortly to define. There are people who regard these grants as a kind of insurance. They are of opinion that if there are enough of these schemes as outlined the Bill—and several of the schemes might well extend for a period which would cover our entry into the Common Market were we to decide to join—even though there were price changes which operated to the disadvantage of agriculturists because we had joined the Common Market, the schemes would be a kind of insurance to meet that situation.
There may be something in that point of view. But I should like to regard the matter from a different aspect. I do not see how the price arrangement from a long-term point of view will work out in connection with the agricultural policy of the Common Market. I know that there is talk about reasonable prices. But I am not sure that the prices which the Six have already laid down, at any rate for the first period of the operation, are reasonable at all, at any rate regarding cereals. I am a cereal grower and repre-

sent a number of such growers. I consider that the continental prices are very high. I cannot visualise the taxpayer, who may have to pay increased prices for food because of the Common Market arrangements, hurrying to provide grants for cereal growers on tap of the price. It may be that I have interpreted the matter wrongly. But I have yet to be convinced that the long-term Common Market price arrangements, into which we might have to fit these grants, will result in a workable proposition. I know that our present interest is concentrated on the transitional period, and I think that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal is right to stick his toes in on this question. But quite apart from the transitional arrangements, it seems to me that we are liable, unless concessions can be obtained, to enter into price arrangements, at all events in respect of cereals, which may prove very unsuitable to our own conditions.
I hope that in looking at this matter over the long term, as we are bound to do, we shall try to envisage what might arise over price arrangements were we to go into the Common Market. I hope that my right hon. Friends the Lord Privy Seal and the Minister will be able to obtain same modification of those price arrangements. I cannot believe that they will be beneficial to the structure of British agriculture, although I know that one should not be too fixed in one's ideas. We must be prepared to face changes, as I think the agricultural industry has done in the past, and is quite willing to do now, provided that they are not only fairly gradual but also fair.
I apologise for digressing from the Bill a little to draw some picture of the way in which I think these arrangements may or may not fit into the Common Market arrangements. I conclude by welcoming the provision's of the Bill in general. I hope and believe that it will aid the continued improvement of fixed equipment of the farms of Britain for the benefit of all concerned, including the welfare of those industries which indirectly benefit from a prosperous, successful and progressive agriculture.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) has raised one of the problems which has afflicted


the giving of grants for many years. It is the question of how to help agriculture on bad land without giving very large benefits to farmers on good land.
One of the problems of a debate on agriculture is that there are no general principles applying to the whole of agriculture. As the hon. Member said, there are such varieties of land. There are even varieties of land in the same area. There are varieties over different parts of the country to such an extent that it is almost impossible to devise any method which could be fair and equitable to everyone.
When I had the pleasure and honour of working with Lord Williams when the Charter for Agriculture was introduced, the purpose was to try to overcome these difficulties by making flexible arrangements. The hon. Member has raised the problem of the efficiency of agriculture. At that time we set up agricultural executive committees and put into the hands of farmers themselves in their localities, because they knew the intimate circumstances of farms, the duty of deciding whether farms were being efficiently conducted or not. It is greatly to be regretted that this Government have abolished those committees and resorted to all kinds of substitutes to achieve a proper result.
The Bill before us is not a comprehensive Bill. Very largely it is a holding operation until decisions are come to about the Common Market. The very dates in regard to the subsidies suggest that this is merely a matter of holding the field without prejudice to what might happen in the discussions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said, there are many points in the Bill which are satisfactory and to be welcomed.
When reading Clause 5 I was a little worried about the Government stipulating the kind of fertilisers to use, which might give monopoly or monopolies to certain suppliers of fertilisers. I should like to know what provision is to be made to control the price. Before the war John Morgan, who was an hon. Member of this House, used to allege that every time a subsidy was given to farmers it was immediately collected by the suppliers of feedingstuffs, who had a monopoly and put up the price to absorb the whole subsidy so that none of the

money went to the farmers. This is one of the problems which must be faced in regard to Clause 5. I should like the Secretary of State to deal with it when he replies to the debate.
I am particularly interested in Clauses 10 and 11 which, I take it, are to provide a substitute for the M.A.P.s which have been abolished. Am I right in concluding that this is meant to compensate farmers on marginal land for the abolition of these agricultural grants? On the other hand, it will be contributing to a very important part of marginal land production.
In Scotland we probably have as great, if not a greater, variety of types of land as in any other part of the United Kingdom. The Balfour Commission grouped Scottish land into four types. There was the western wet land, the central Highlands, the eastern part, lowland, and a drier part which is also mountainous and highland. The Commission said that one of the problems of trying to do anything about intelligent planning in the direction suggested by the hon. Member for King's Lynn was not that there was anything wrong with the land or the possibilty of treating the land, but the fact that no one had the right to interfere with the owners or tenants. Scotland's land is so hemmed in by legal rights that nobody dare interfere with, that there is a great danger of the land and the people on it suffering unless some method could be found of breaking through the barrier separating the desire of the Government for improvement and the desire of the owner or tenant to stay put.
The West Coast particularly requires some intelligent planning. In winter there is no possibility of finding transport for winter feed for the cattle. It is therefore essential, if we are to increase the cattle population of the West Coast, to provide winter feed grown in the area. In our hills we can produce far more grass for the feeding of cattle in summer than can be kept alive over the winter. That is the first problem, but it has been shown that with the co-operation of forestry in providing shelter belts on the side of hills and preventing the swift run-off of rainfall, fertiliser can be preserved and more crops grown in the summer and preserved for winter feed.
If that is to be done there must be cooperation with the people on the land. I am very glad that there is emphasis in the Bill on the preservation of grassland rather than on paying for ploughing up. As Alec Allan and the Scottish Department have shown by experiments on the Solway, much of this land can be improved without ploughing up. Indeed, Mr. Allan has proved that if it is ploughed up much of the value of fertiliser is lost and that it is far better to retain the texture of the land and to convert peat land into pasture land by a purely natural method of fertilising. I take it that stress on the importance of benefiting grassland rather than ploughing up has some reference to these Clauses. Farmers have been able to combine these things and have converted thousands of acres into good grassland by this method, which is now spreading all over the world.
The hill land is an important area in Scotland because it can provide a reservoir of stock and form a foundation of stock which can come down to the better lands. We are apt to think of the West Highlands as being blotted out in winter time, but in the middle of the West Highlands there is Lord Lovat's land. There cattle can be brought down during winter into beautiful parkland. Lord Brocket whose land was further to the West Coast had to transport all his sheep to the Black Isle to winter them there. There is no simple and easy measure for dealing with all these problems. Nearly every farmer has to deal with his problems in his own way. I would ask the Government, in view of this holding operation, what is to be the end of it. Before doing so there are one or two other questions which I should like to ask.
I was interested in the question of the vaccination of poultry. The Minister referred to poultry pest the other day and I wondered what was the evidence of the efficacy of vaccination. I gather that it is not to be adopted in Scotland, but there is still some argument going on whether vaccination would be of any use in dealing with foot and mouth disease, and whether there is any possibility of developing a vaccine against swine fever or whether there is any other method of preventing it. Is the slaughter policy the only policy for this? I gather that

it is the only economic policy discovered so far, but I should be interested to hear something more about it.
Clauses 16 and 17 refer only to England and Wales. I am a little puzzled why the Land Commission is being abolished and the land sold to tenants. There may be some peculiarity about tenants in England, but I have found that tenants in Scotland do not want to own their land because, by their not owning it, the landlord is responsible for the fixed equipment. I shall be very interested to hear that English and Welsh tenants are bursting to provide their fixed equipment. I should be astonished if that was entirely the case.
I understand that Clauses 18 and 19 are concerned very largely with administrative changes, and I do not want to go into any other details in the Bill with regard to its working. I should, however, like to ask, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington did at the beginning of the debate, what is the final picture of all this? I know that it is a holding operation, but agriculture cannot be planned from year to year. When one is talking about livestock, as most of the people in the Highlands and elsewhere are doing, one has to be thinking of 7, 8 or 10 years ahead. The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that Scotland must accept change. That is a new idea for the Conservative Party, and it seems to belie its name, which is to keep things as they are. We are quite willing to accept it, and we hope to recruit him in due course to forward-looking ideas.
I gather from what I read that Captain Coutts, who is a factor for a very advanced farming concern, J. & A. Noble, I think it is called, with whom, I think, the Secretary of State has some little acquaintance, was talking about some of the very great advances made in regard to the production of better cattle and the use of science in the improvement of dairy and beef stock, and he augured a very great future for it. That is not a new thing. The Labour Government, away back in 1924, started the process of breeding better bulls and trying to get rid of scrub bulls. Now, with the advent of artificial insemination, we have the opportunity of getting rid of these bad cattle almost in the space of one cattle generation.
I gather that the right hon. Gentleman, in his own farming experience, is practising efficient farming of this kind in a very big way. I do not think that if we go into the Common Market people who are doing that need have the slightest fear. I find that the efficient farmers whom I come across have no fear at all about going into the Common Market. Today, when the Minister of Agriculture was speaking to us, he was also speaking —he may not know it—to a delegation of German farmers, who were listening to him. They are here because they are interested in what they can learn from British farmers about solving the problems of agriculture on the Continent. There is no question at all that, if we are efficient, we need not fear competition from any one. The trouble is that farming ranges from the highly efficient farmer, of whom the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) is one, to the small farmer who cannot afford, as the hon. Gentleman said, even to improve his byre.
What is to be the future of agriculture? Is there any possibility that we can bring the less efficient farmers up to such a degree of efficiency that they can survive in this new world? My own view is that the Government, for some years, have been turning a wintry blast on them and allowing them to wither away. It has not been said in so many words, but there has been a gradual withering away on the fringe.

Mr. Tomney: A good thing.

Mr. Woodburn: I think that this is still the Government's policy. It may be that in the long run it is an essential part of evolution.

Mr. Tomney: We have the problem of evolution.

Mr. Woodburn: It is easy to populate Hammersmith, but it is not so easy to populate the Highlands of Scotland. Therefore, we have to decide whether we want to maintain the population in the back lands and outposts of this country. I think that it is desirable to maintain the population on the land. It breeds healthy and virile people who have made a wonderful contribution to the world, considering that they are such a small section of the population. Therefore, it

is desirable to preserve them. If we are to preserve them we cannot do so by wasteful methods of pouring in money that just goes down the drain.
The idea is to make it possible for these people to live and be efficient. Lord Williams and I were always convinced that one of the ways was to supply aid at the beginning of the process, that is, to give the money in a directional way so as to direct the efforts of the farmer to improving his land, his stock and the countryside. There was great success in that. I remember a case of a hill farmer, with a farm 3,000 ft. up. He came back from the war, started farming, and was able to produce sheep which captured all the prizes in the Perth show. This was possible because he adopted business methods, utilised plant to the best advantage, and carried on.
I should like to know what is the Government's general policy. It would help farmers if they were told what they are expected to do and what they must do if they are to survive. They would then get down to the job. If they are led to believe that they must go battling on for another sixty years, there will come a rude awakening that will damage not only them but the country as well.
I was interested in an article in the Scotsman the other week in which there was a reference to Mr. Mutch of Edinburgh University. It is very flattering that Scottish universities have been quoted to such an extent today. He pointed out that in his view an end was coming to this support. In other words, he thought that there would be a gradual tapering off in support for agriculture, so that farming would have to live on its own merits. He came to the view that much of our farming would not live on its own merits but would perish. In that event, he thought that the successor would be forestry, and he asked for an intelligent pattern of forestry to be developed.
He also pointed out that it was already becoming difficult to obtain shepherds and that the Highlands of Scotland might go back to a policy of wild herding, a form of ranging in which one gathered the stock at the end of the year. I do not think that we have yet reached that point, but undoubtedly there is a great redundancy in the land. Yesterday


we had a debate on miners, and a reference was made to the number of miners who would be unemployed. Very few people realise that there are 6,000 fewer workers on the land of Scotland this year than there were last year. It is true that they were not such highly skilled workers in the past, but those people who have to leave the land must drift into the towns with their families, and they contribute to the redundancy problem. As far as I can see, farming is bound to become more mechanised and more scientific. Workers are bound to be more highly paid, and there are bound to be fewer but more highly skilled workers on the land.
There has been a great depopulation of the Welsh hills. One main reason that they were over-populated was that there was no food for these people in the towns, and in those circumstances it is better to live on a farm. When well-paid jobs were available in the towns, the workers left the farms and went to the towns. This is not a bad process, nor is it a bad process to get farming rationalised by having efficient farming with a high level of mechanisation. We need not deplore the loss of people from the land if fewer people are producing the same amount of food.
The Government ought to give us and the farming community a picture of what they are expecting. I realise that this is difficult in the middle of these negotiations on the Common Market, but one thing is certain: whether we go into the Common Market or not, farming must become more efficient, and all the Government's efforts should be directed to helping it to that end.
The Secretary of State says that we must accept change. I presume that he means to guide that change. Are the changes to take place in a haphazard way? Is the new system to grow like Topsy? Or will there be a new system of agriculture, horticulture, beef and grain production in Scotland?
We were able to achieve a considerable amount after the war. It would be difficult to institute all those controls now, but I am sure that the farming population of Scotland, which is always ready to look for scientific advance and guidance, is ready to be guided. If the Minister puts some general guidance before them, the agricultural community

of Scotland will be willing to co-operate in following it. The right hon. Gentleman is a farmer, and he ought to be able to give them a professional lead as well as a political lead by giving them the necessary direction.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Stodart: In the closing stages of his speech the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said that whether we go into Europe or not, farming must become more efficient. I am sure that it is superfluous for me to hope that he has not forgotten the increased efficiency which farming has shown over the last several years. In Scotland alone we have half as much food again being produced by half the number of hands.
I welcome the Bill primarily because I think that it pin-points the wise investment of public money. A great deal of public money has been invested in agriculture, an astronomical amount since the war, and yet I say without any hesitation that no capital investment has shown a better return, by and large, for the people of this country.
This is an important Bill applying, as it does, to the United Kingdom as a whole, and much of it is of particular importance to Scotland. We should not forget the much higher proportion of Scotland's farming economy which lies in the hills and on the high ground. My right hon. Friend referred briefly to the Clauses to do with winter keep. It is worth emphasising the fact that 72 per cent. of Scotland's land area consists of rough grazing and that the equivalent area south of the Border is only 15 per cent. Perhaps that underlines the importance of the Clauses which have to do with the rearing of livestock.
It is admirable that an extra £3 million is being devoted to improvements on hill farms. It is, however, a pity that there has not been an extension of the scheme in respect of its finality, because it is due to run out in less than twelve months' time. The date is Guy Fawkes Day next year. I do not know what is the significance of that date as applied to hill farming. But on the hills, even more than on the lowlands, it is essential to be able to make plans far ahead, and I must confess that I regret the failure to extend the time as well as the money.
The powers to operate the hill cattle and hill sheep subsidies are being extended in the Bill by four years, which is good. But I hope that the Government will consider in this context, and at this juncture, taking note of a point which I have mentioned previously—as have hon. Members on both sides of the House—the importance, where possible, of concentrating help where it is most needed. This is an important point in all investment by the taxpayers. Another aim should be to provide incentives to get the greater efficiency which the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire mentioned.
This takes me back to a publication in which I played a part and which perhaps my right hon. Friend remembers. This was a booklet, "A Study of Scottish Agriculture in the Twentieth Century". In it, when we were talking of this general subject and about the general principles of differential treatment, we said,
Even in such cases as the hill sheep subsidy, there are good and cogent reasons for having different rates for different areas.
When we went on to talk about the hill cow subsidy we said,
Nor are we entirely happy that the hill cow subsidy is being paid in the most effective manner for producing the greatest number of hill calves, which is its main objective. We would suggest that a slightly higher rate of subsidy be paid, but that it should be confined to cows rearing a calf in the current year, and not apply, as at present, to all hill cows. This would nut the emphasis on efficiency and production.
This is an opportunity for such aims to be fulfilled.
I am delighted with the further encouragements towards more farm improvements. They have been referred to already by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard). The agricultural revolution which has taken place in the fields had, until the Farm Improvements Scheme was introduced, created a very tight bottleneck indeed in some very sturdy farm buildings, most of which were built in the middle of the last century. A tremendous amount of the efficiency of the new field machinery was dissipated by the antiquated fixed equipment. The Farm Improvement Grant ranks very high indeed among all the post-war Measures which have been introduced.
A feature of the winter keep proposals is that assistance is being directed towards certain types of farm. Much has been said, as it often is said in debates on agriculture, about the size of farms and how difficult it is to ensure that the big farmer does not do too well if the small farmer is to make a reasonable living. I have never thought that size is the real yardstick by which to judge agricultural investment and assistance. A very large hill sheep farm may not be doing well. A very small arable farm may be doing extremely well. It is the type of farm much rather than the size which is important.
The winter keep Clause, of all Clauses in the Bill, is of especial importance to Scotland. It is, as the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire said, designed as a successor, and I hope rather more than a successor, to the marginal argicultural production scheme. In our booklet—I do not want to labour it, but there is some awfully sound stuff in it—we stressed the importance of marginal and upland farms. I want to stress a point here which has not been made so far. This is the importance of thinking ahead in food production, because of the prospects as we know them of the upward surge in world population and the consequent need to make use of every available acre. When we were thinking about hill ground we said:
We should, however, face some hard facts before we allow ourselves to be carried away on a high tide of emotion. What restricts full use being made of the hill ground in Scotland is the difficulty of providing enough keep for stock during the winter months: and that particular problem cannot be solved so easily in the hills themselves as it can be in what has for some years now been described as the marginal ground, which lies lower down. If more hay could be grown on the marginal farms for use higher up, then more stock could tramp the hills and improve them—at comparatively little cost.
One cannot neglect the long-term world food problem. Therefore, the maintenance of production on upland farms is of the very greatest importance.

Mr. Loughlin: I do not want unduly to advertise the booklet, which I understand that the hon. Gentleman wrote himself. The analysis he has made is fairly accurate, but should he not relate it to the need far the grant provisions in the Bill? He is not making a case


for the grant provisions in the Bill. He is merely making a case that something ought to be done, but by the farmers. Would he now relate it to the grant provisions?

Mr. Stodart: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not appreciated what I was saying. Our advice—it was not mine solely; it was the advice of several authors—was that production on upland ground should be stimulated. This is exactly what has been done by the introduction of the winter keep Clauses in the Bill.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend one or two specific questions about his intentions for operating the winter keep scheme. My right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay), the former Secretary of State, spoke to the National Farmers' Union of Scotland at its annual general meeting last April. He is reported in the Union's journal as having said:
The Secretary of State made it clear that the Winter Keep Scheme would be of United Kingdom application, although its detail might vary from country to country. He said that the Winter Keep Scheme would be confined to hill and livestock rearing areas to supplement the existing special forms of assistance such as hill cattle and hill sheep subsidy by a scheme designed to give direct encouragement to the provision of winter keep which largely determines stocking capacity … The Secretary of State recognised that there were considerable variations in the quality of land and other conditions between one farm and another … and he accepted that there were strong arguments for differential rates of grants related to these factors. The scheme would require a classification of farms and the Department of Agriculture would embark on this right away.
Has classification taken place, or is it in the process of taking place? I do not think that the winter keep scheme should be limited to land which is defined in the Livestock Rearing Act. I believe that it should go wider, for three reasons.
First, there are farms which get marginal agricultural production grants but which are not eligible for the livestock rearing grants. Another reason far thinking that it must go wider is that I saw in a farming journal last week a heading which said, "Move to cut the ploughing grant". I have many times advocated that the ploughing grant should be not so widely available as it

is at the moment, but I think that it would be a disaster to upland farms to lose marginal agricultural production grants and ploughing grants but yet not be eligible for the grant under the new winter keep scheme.
I hope that any intention to do away with the ploughing grants does not imply total surgery upon the £7 an acre section. It would be perfectly simple to do what nearly all hon. Members want, to extend the period from four years to seven years, and that would automatically cut out the grant being made use of for arable farms. Thirdly, in any figures which are published by the agricultural colleges in Scotland and, I have no doubt, by the agricultural advisory services in England, it will be found that the sectors of the industry described as upland stock rearing show the lowest returns. The pure hill sheep farm does better on the whole, and the low ground farms immeasurably so. It would be untenable for farmers in the upland areas to be deprived of their marginal and ploughing grants and still not be eligible for the winter keep arrangements.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will not adhere too rigidly to that definition, and, with these reservations, I welcome the Bill as being well worthwhile and for its endeavour to invest money where it will get the best possible return.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: I am afraid that, unlike the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), I do not have a book on agriculture to advertise. However, it was interesting to have a commercial from him in the course of a natural break on what undoubtedly must be a most excellent book. I hope that, in due course, the hon. Member will send me a copy so that I may study it.
I agree with many of his points, especially those regarding the size of a farm. Indeed, it is not its size alone which is the important criteria. Perhaps I might add to his remarks by saying that a farm's resources and not its size are particularly important, and I am sure that he will agree with me. Essentially this is a Committee stage Bill, a tidying-up Bill, which of necessity lacks any general theme or principle. I hope that hon.


Members will pardon me if instead of dealing with the general principles involved, important though they are, I deal with some of the Clauses.
As a Welshman with a large proportion of hill-farming going on in my country I find Clause I extremely important in that it increases the amount of grant available under the Hill Farming Acts. However, is it more than a paper increase? When one realises that of the quantity of schemes approved under these Acts only a small proportion of them have been carried out and completed—I think the figures are 13 per cent. for Wales and 22 per cent. for England—one must ask whether this is more than a paper increase, for it merely authorises an increase in the number of schemes which can be approved.
I pay tribute to the work done as a result of these Acts, and in my country we have seen derelict farms transformed. To borrow and translate the words of a Welsh poet, instead of brambles we have wheat fields and instead of dereliction we have thriving industry in the hills. This has brought new life and hope to many parts of the country, but I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West about the date of 5th November—Guy Fawkes Day.
Although that date will affect the submission of new schemes for approval, I was glad of the Minister's assurance that work may continue after that date, and that is most important. I would have thought that for the Minister to justify the fact that there are no longer to be any new schemes submitted for approval after 5th November, 1963, he should have been able to tell the House that there is no longer any reservoir of farms which, had schemes been submitted, would have been able to benefit from such schemes.
Had we exhausted all the farms which might benefit from schemes of this nature the Minister would have been justified in saying that no extension would be permitted beyond 5th November. However, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there are many farms—I do not know how many but perhaps he can tell us—which would benefit if new schemes were submitted. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that such a reservoir of farms no longer exists he cannot justify the stopping of what has undoubtedly been a well-conceived

scheme which has brought great benefit to this part of the industry.

Mr. Soames: I would remind the hon. Member that this scheme has been going for seventeen years. It has, therefore, been in existence for a long time and during all these years farmers have been able to take advantage of it. In recent years applications have been falling off considerably, and in view of the length of time the scheme has been going and the rate of applications coming in, we did not see the necessity for keeping it going beyond November, 1963.

Mr. Morris: I appreciate the Minister's remarks about the length of time the scheme has been running, but I hope he will give an indication that there is no longer a substantial proportion of farms which could benefit if applications were made. After all, although the scheme has been running for many years there may be other reasons why farmers have not applied for assistance. For example, some farmers may not have had sufficient capital to do so. It is interesting to note that an examination of the scheme shows that in Wales £16½ million worth of schemes were approved up to 1961—but no more than £4¼ million worth were carried out. I submit that the reason is that the hill farmers were not able to provide the capital necessary to fulfil their part of the bargain and effect these improvements.
That may be just one reason why, of the number of schemes approved, a large proportion were only partly or not carried out. For one reason or another, farmers may not have found themselves in a position to apply for assistance. For these reasons, I urge the Minister to reconsider the date of 5th November, 1963.
I was interested to hear the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) on the payment of grants if we enter the Common Market. I hope that the Minister will be able to give an assurance that protection grants will be paid. Many Clauses refer to agricultural co-operation and the payment of grants to assist co-operative effort. I feel strongly about this and I am glad to see some emphasis, though not as much as I had hoped, on co-operation.
I recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) moved a number of Amendments


in Committee on the 1957 Bill. They were designed to have more money injected into the industry in an effort to achieve greater agricultural co-operation. I also recall that I moved a number of Amendments in Committee when we were considering the Horticulture Act, and I am glad to see that the Government seem to agree that agricultural co-operation is an important factor for the industry.
Considering the size and number of hill farming schemes which were approved in the past but which were not carried out, I wonder why—apart from the shortage of capital—those schemes were not executed? Was it because too grandiose schemes were conceived originally or that while the original schemes approved were thought to be right at the time, when they came to be put into operation they were no longer necessary because the farms in the hills had been amalgamated and the proposed improvements were no longer needed? I hope that in future when grants of this nature are paid out regard will be had to the need of a community or a valley. If certain facilities, such as for sheep shearing, can be used in co-operation, the argument should not be put forward by the Government that agricultural co-operatives lack permanence for receiving grants of this nature.
Clause 8 refers to organisations like the W.A.O.S. and the sister organisation in England which will be responsible for co-operation. I hope that every use will be made of these organisations which have done such a great deal to organise agricultural co-operation in England and Wales. But I was staggered to read in the Digest of Welsh Statistics that the Government grant to the W.A.O.S. has gone down year by year. In 1956 the organisation was receiving £8,000. In 1960 the grant was down to £6,500 and in 1961 it was under £6,000. Perhaps we can be told what will be the effect of Clause 8 on the organisation and why these grants have fallen year by year.
I welcome the provision in Clause 2 for a four-year extension of the period for payment of subsidies in respect of hill sheep and cattle, but is it enough? Is the farming community happy that only this period of extension has been given? We all know full well that livestock breeding is not a short-term

matter. Essentially it needs long-term planning. I hope that the Minister will obtain the fullest co-operation from the farming organisations and an assurance that they are happy about this extension and are satisfied that it is for a sufficiently long period.
As the Minister said, Clause 3 is one of the most important in the Bill. It seeks to increase the amounts available for grants under Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1957. The Minister told us that utilisation of this part of the Act exceeded all possible expectations. I have always held the view that it may well be that some of these smaller farmers have not been able to benefit sufficiently from this scheme. In the same way as the hill farmers have not been able to find their capital to carry out improvements, so it may be that the smaller farmers under this Act have not been able to find their part of the capital to implement these schemes. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us who has benefited from the 1957 Act, and to give figures of the types of farms which have benefited from the large payments that have been made.
A point was made earlier about the fact that capital may be injected in this way into a farm and that the farm might be sold shortly after the improvements have been made. In reply to that intervention the Minister said—and I agree with him up to a point—that if large capital were injected into a farm by way of improvement and the farm went on to the market the following day one would not expect full recoupment of the amount invested. But I understand that there is no restriction whatsoever on an owner if he obtains a substantial grant —and some farms have benefited considerably—from selling the farm the following day after completing a scheme. Undoubtedly he would not benefit from the whole of a sum of £10,000 paid by the Exchequer on completion of a scheme of £30,000, but he might well benefit from a substantial proportion of the money obtained from the Exchequer.
There should be some restriction on the resale of these farms after substantial schemes of this nature have been completed, because the new buyer will not benefit at all from the Government money injected into the farm. He will


have to pay for the whole of the improvement or as much as the seller can get from him. Possibly some restriction can be imposed in order to pass on the benefit from the speculator who may have obtained the Government grant, to the new owner-occupier.

Mr. John Farr: It is little use the hon. Member asking us to draw these inferences. This scheme has been operating for five years and if this practice has been frequent and prevalent surely the hon. Member can furnish us with concrete examples.

Mr. Morris: I am not saying that this is a prevalent practice, but one knows—I will not go into details—of instances where large estates have been valued on the market at an amount which includes the accretion of substantial sums of Government money injected into the estate. This has been apparent to many people and it should not be beyond the wit of the Government to transfer the benefit of Government money to the new owner-occupier.

Mr. J. T. Price: We ought not to be mealy-mouthed about this point. We are all men of the world and most of us are capable of keeping our eyes open. The facts are that the capital values of farmsteads today are outside the purses of most young farmers who want to buy them. They are from five to seven times 1939 values on average. This great increase in the capital values of farms has been brought about by the injection of £4,000 million of public money into farming subsidies, improvement grants and things of that kind. Whatever the ratio has been, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) is entitled to say that farm values have increased as a result of public money going into them. One has only to buy a newspaper any week and look at the estate agents' lists to find that out.

Mr. Morris: I am obliged to my hon. Friend and perhaps I can now get on with my speech. We may enjoy a more detailed discussion of this matter in Committee.
Clause 10 refers to winter keep grants. I cannot see why these should be limited to livestock rearing land. Many farmers who do not qualify for grants of this

nature ought to benefit. Having regard to the possibility of our entry into the Common Market, and, indeed, even without that possibility, having regard to the importance of growing as much as possible of our own keep, I suggest that the Minister should either give a very liberal interpretation of the Clause or extend it altogether to provide this assistance for a far wider class of people. Some farms have qualified in the past for hill-farming grants and there are other farms in the lowlands which can look after themselves very well, but there is a class between these two. This is the class of small producers on 100–150 acres of medium land which might be regarded by many as poor land. These people can never qualify for any of these schemes. They usually find themselves between two stools. Even though there are difficulties, I would ask the Minister in due course to give the most liberal interpretation he can to this important Clause.
May I now refer to the Agricultural Land Commission, which has been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart)? I am very dissatisfied with Clause 16 and I disagree entirely with the dissolution of the Agricultural Land Commission and the Welsh Agricultural Sub-Commission for which great hopes were originally entertained. It was hoped that they would be the means of some structural reorganisation in an industry which badly needed it. The Welsh Sub-Commission has done a tremendous amount of work, and I am glad to join in the tribute which the Minister paid to that body.
The Glanllyn Estate is being sold to a consortium of tenants. I should like to know from the Minister whether that sale is complete and, if not, what stage has been reached in this transaction. Having set up the consortium of buyers of these farms, is there any restriction on the eventual breaking up of the consortium so that each farmer is able to break away from what has been managed efficiently as one estate hitherto?
I should now like to refer to the question of land which is now held by the Agricultural Land Commission and which is being transferred to the Forestry Commission. I am concerned mainly with the future. Undoubtedly a tenant


of the Land Commission has his own safeguards under Sections 24 and 25 of the Agricultural Holdings Act if he is disturbed. But if land is transferred to the Forestry Commission and the Forestry Commission uses that land for forestry, even though the tenant is a sitting tenant, he will lose his protection under the Agricultural Holdings Act.
If land which is at present held by the Land Commission is intended to be transferred to the Forestry Commission I should like to know what protection is to be given to sitting tenants from the point of view of security of tenure. It seems to me that such people would lose that security as things now stand.
I welcome the amendment in Clause 17 to Section 24 of the 1948 Act. I have some exerience of the working of this provision, and I have found that, in practice, it has frequently imposed great hardship when notice has been served on a tenant to remedy breaches of the terms and conditions of his tenancy. A notice is served, containing a schedule of fifty or sixty necessary matters to be remedied. The tenant is given a certain time in which to complete. The schedule may contain references to ditching, hedging and 101 other matters.
At the end of the period an arbitration is held at which the arbitrator decides whether a tenant, having been given reasonable notice, has complied with the requirements of the notice. It may be that out of the many breaches which require remedying one has been left undone. The arbitrator will find that the tenant must leave. That is the hardship which has resulted from the operation of this provision to date.
I do not exactly follow the details of the proposed amendment, but perhaps we can go over this in greater detail later. As I understand it, the intention of the Government is to remove this hardship and uncertainty. It is essentially a Committee stage matter, and I hope we shall have a good Committee to go into this point fully. I hope also that it will assist in bringing a measure of prosperity to agriculture.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Percy Browne: I am sorry that I do not see the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Pearl) in his place. I thought that he propounded

principles and policies with unusual verbocity. Perhaps I could say in ten seconds that in principle I support this Bill, because I do not have to spend ten minutes convincing my hon. Friends that it is a good Bill.
Perhaps I could also suggest that the hon. Gentleman answered his own argument when he kept on asking what is the long-term policy of the Government. He suggested that we should read an extract from a certain book in which it is shown that producer subsidies have risen twofold during the past few years. I should have thought that this proved conclusively that the Government have rightly been moving in the direction of increasing producer subsidies, for obvious reasons, not only to benefit the person who is farming the small farm but with a view to the negotiations which are now going on in Brussels.
I welcome many Clauses in the Bill. I should like to make special mention of the Farm Improvements Scheme. This provision is far and away financially the biggest part of the Bill in that it involves a sum of £35 million. This scheme has enabled our holdings to be brought up to date and has enabled farmers to increase efficiency. A great deal has been said in the debate about weighting this scheme in favour of the smaller farmer and about the fact that people may do the necessary improvements and then sell their farms.
As to that second point, I should have thought there was a simple answer. I do not suggest that that eventuality does not arise occasionally, but the question is: is it in the national interest or not to improve these farms? The answer is that it is in the national interest, and, that being so, it does not matter whether the farm is sold to somebody else so long as the production of the farm is increased by the improvements which have been carried out, even if the new owner pays a little extra because the improvements were done during the occupation of a previous owner.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) who suggested that it would be a good idea if the Farm Improvements Scheme could he weighted towards the smaller unit. But I think my right hon. Friend was moving in the right direction last


year when the grant for machinery syndicates was introduced in the White Paper. This is the alternative, co-operation between the smaller farmer, which many off us have been preaching for several years. This is the method which will enable the smaller unit to be viable and will enable the smaller man to remain on his own holding. It was because my right hon. Friend did not carry on with his policy in this year's Price Review that I disagree with him fundamentally, although I have never had an opportunity before to say so on the Floor of the House. I hope, therefore, that in the next Price Review he will increase all grants which will encourage co-operation.
Let me make it clear that I am not suggesting that we should have co-operatives. I want the individual farmer to remain on his own holding, farming his own land in co-operation with his neighbours, thereby decreasing the unit cost of production, particularly in the amount of machinery that he has on his holding.
I agree with much of what has been said about the hill farming and livestock rearing parts of the Bill. Whilst we welcome the fact that there is to be more money available, even if only for a short time, I should like to know from the Minister whether he is satisfied that there are not in all counties, and in Devon in particular, a large number of farms which are still in a position to take up these grants. What about the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act, 1955? There are many lanes and roads, both unclassified and classified, in Devon and other parts of the country which will still require aid if they are to be kept up so that the milk lorries and other lorries, apart from the farmer himself, may pass up and down.
While it is very easy in places like Wales and Scotland to decide upon the line between hill land and lowland —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—in parts of Devonshire it is not nearly so easy to differentiate.

Mr. John MacLeod: That is nonsense. If my hon. Friend comes to Ross he will be able to see for himself.

Mr. Browne: If my hon. Friend cares to ask me up there one of these days, I

shall be delighted to come. I have not been there yet.
At present, the lines are drawn fairly arbitrarily by way of a road or a contour.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: No.

Mr. Browne: I hope that we may consider further the question of what is, in fact, hill farm land and livestock rearing land.
When the grants cease, shall we cease to succour the hill farmer? I think that this is the danger. I accept that under Clause 10 the problem is partly resolved by the special winter keep grant, yet, if the need is there, as it is, for aid for livestock rearing on the hills, there is surely a need for a continuation of help. We cannot just say, "We have given it to you, and you must get on with it". The problems will remain.
I am glad that the Minister is to give us more detail about the improvement of permanent pasture, under Clause 11, and tell us exactly what it entails. I am glad that it is to be dealt with through the local committees. Could he tell us at the end of the debate how it will affect the Small Farmer Schemes? Are we to have a grant on a grant on a grant? It rather looks as though we may under this Clause. I think I am right in saying that, under the Small Farmer Schemes at present, a man is able to get grants for the improvement of permanent pasture. While I welcome the Clause in general, I should be interested to know how it affects the Small Farmer Schemes.
Like the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), I welcome the stopping of the gap in the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. It is of interest to note that estate agents and agents generally did not discover the loophole until fairly recently, but, since they discovered it, they have made fairly wide use of it. As the hon. Gentleman said, one is written to, time and again, by tenants who say that they have been asked to remedy a list of breaches, and the time given is hopelessly inadequate. Now, a tenant will have the opportunity to test the right of the landlord to ask him to remedy the breaches before he even starts to do so. Further, he cannot be asked to do it again within a period of six months. All this is to be welcomed.
I had hoped that we should have some reference to ploughing grants in the Bill. It has always been my contention, as it has been the contention of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), that, in order to get rid of the £7 an acre ploughing grant in general as it is given at the moment, it would be a good thing to concentrate it on a limited acreage per 100 acres basis. In this way, we should definitely weight in favour of the small farmer.
Although generally to be welcomed, the Bill raises some obvious questions. First, will it be possible to continue the producer subsidies once we go into the Common Market? When one looks at the date when some of them cease, one wonders. However, as I understand it, any producer subsidy which does not distort the terms of trade will continue when we go into the Common Market. I think that my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the way he has gradually moved our agricultural policy towards producer grants many of which do not distort the terms of trade as do others, like the fertiliser subsidy and so on, which, obviously, will eventually have to go. The Farm Improvements Scheme, the winter keep grants and so on are, I am sure, subsidies which can be kept if we go into the Common Market.
Even when all these things have been said and done, the question of producer grants in relation to the Common Market is of minor importance compared with the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn. The question of reasonable price policies is fundamental. I received today an Answer from my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal saying that nothing has been done about this in the last round of negotiations. But this is the nub of the problem, before we start talking about producer subsidies and which we can keep and which we cannot in the Common Market.
We must have proper negotiation and decision upon the way in which the Common Market Fund is made up. We must have the right of veto during the vacuum between the initialling of the heads of agreement and ratification of the Treaty of Rome, should these things take place, during which time the Six

may make up their mind on what policy they will adopt for a particular product, while we—

Mr. Speaker: This is so miscellaneous a Bill that I do not pose as an expert on its content. but I think there must be a limit to a discussion of the Common Market.

Mr. Browne: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. It has been mentioned before. These are important problems fundamental to any agriculture debate. This has been a fairly wide-ranging debate, and I hope, at least, that my right hon. Friend will take the point.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Frank Tomney: We have now reached the stage when hon. Members opposite are quarrelling about their own priorities. I wondered how long it would be before we reached it, but we have got there at last. The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard), who, I must say, I enjoy more on television than I enjoy hearing in the House, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) posed a problem regarding the size of farms. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West said that size did not matter in terms of units. The hon. Member for King's Lynn said that size did matter.
What neither hon. Member recognises is that agriculture is an industry which should operate according to ordinary commercial practice. The ordinary commercial practice is to secure an adequate and fair return upon the capital employed in the enterprise, before those concerned start receiving the benefits of hand-outs from the Government in subsidies and so on. This is the difficulty for the small farmer. He starts in business in the belief that the subsidies will keep him alive.
This is where the thing has gone all wrong. This is why the problem has been building up year after year. This is why the public are growing tired of it.

Mr. John MacLeod: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tomney: Let me get started. I have not had much time yet.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said that he was looking for a glimmer of the Government's policy in regard to agriculture


and what it might be in future years. In my opinion, this is not a glimmer—it is a bonfire, a blazing bonfire of public cash. I calculate that no less than £4,300 million will have been invested since 1947 in the agricultural industry of this country. The scale of subsidies proposed in this Bill is another indication that the days of unrestricted protection for British agriculture will have to come to an end. Common Market or not.
Over the last five years, according to the best figures I can dig out, 80 per cent. of the net income of British farmers has come from direct taxation. That is a fantastic situation. A country like this, competing for world trade against our rising prices and overseas efficiency, an engineering country which has to export, cannot afford the amount of money for this industry. My hon. Friends from Scotland are complaining about unemployment and the rundown of industry in Scotland, British shipyards are becoming defunct and there are pockets of unemployment throughout the country, and yet we continue this kind of unrealistic support for an industry which ought to meet its obligations from its own capital.
We are sometimes told—we have often heard the argument in the past—that farming subsidies save the balance of payments. That is a contentious statement, and the cost of feedingstuffs and other agricultural products which have to be imported does not bear out that view. I have gone through the Bill in detail and it provides, in addition to what has already been paid, for the production of practically everything, except perhaps the growing of grapes on the top of Ben Nevis—and if somebody offered to do that, we would find a subsidy for him.
The farmers come along with special pleading for one subsidy after another, and as one runs out, they think up another. I am a great admirer of the National Farmers' Union and of its former chief negotiator, James Turner. Whatever he was paid, he was worth it. He has built into the structure of farming so many qualifying conditions and so many competing commitments that it is the hardest job in the world for the Minister to tackle the problem piecemeal. All he can do is to conduct a surgical operation and then let the farmers sort themselves out. As it is, if he cuts one thing they find another. Today it is road

grants and country lanes, or the cooperatives and sharing of machinery.
Nobody doubts that our farming is efficient. Of course it is. Our farming is the most efficient and most highly mechanised in the world. But it is on the marginal land that the difficulty arises. I have said before that it is not our purpose from these benches to decry the proper place of agriculture in the community, but it is our duty to look after the taxpayers' money. This year, we had to spend £70 million in deficiency payments for beef. That was said to be due to the nice weather in the spring. The farmers said that they could not get rid of their beef, that the retailers did not want it. The result was that £70 million had to be found.
But then the potato crop failed. Housewives were paying 1s. 10d. a pound for new potatoes. I ask hon. Members to consider the difficulty of the housewife with five children and the amount of potatoes that she would have to buy. But she had to pay twice for her potatoes—once in general taxation and once in the shop. She was paying for the grant which the Government paid to bolster up this lot.
This is getting beyond a joke and it is time that hon. Members did something about it. Fluctuating prices with a guaranteed price system do not work for the benefit of the consumer. If there is a surplus, the market price drops and support prices go sky high, but if there is a shortage, supply is tightened and consumer prices soar. It is swings and roundabouts all the time and the general public are on the roundabouts and never on the swings. It is the farmers who are on the swings.
We have heard the most lavish praise from hon. Members opposite—and we shall hear it again—for the Agriculture Act, 1947, which the Labour Party introduced. But the conditions and the terms are now different and that Act has outrun its prime object and it is time to reconsider it, and to do so quickly before we run into more difficulties. What are the prime objects of agriculture? What is acceptable policy for agriculture? Its policy should be based on two objectives—and on two only. One is to get a standard of living for those employed in it equal to that of average industrial workers. That means that agriculture


must secure a place in the economy as important as the factory, even if it is a specialised factory.
No matter what we pretend, agriculture is no longer a rural art. It is a specialised business. The old-fashioned picture which we like to conjure up of the farmer leaning over the farm gate when his day's labour is done, looking at the sunset and smoking his pipe, is wrong. He may be still there nowadays, but he will have the Investors' Chronicle in his pocket. There are no flies on these boys. This industry calls for efficient management and it must appreciate that it cannot have its present disorganisation.
Some years ago, when we were in Government—it seems a long time ago now—an hon. Member opposite who is now a very distinguished Minister and who lived in my part of the country, Hertfordshire, a farming county, said to me one day, "Frank, do you know whether there are any good farms going in Hertfordshire?" I asked, "How would I know that?", to which he replied, "Perhaps we could run one between us". When I looked amazed and said that I knew nothing about farming, he said, "My dear boy"—in his best Eton tones—"You do not need to know anything; all you want is a bookkeeper". Now I know that he was right. It was that which first started me thinking about this subject. I used to listen to my friend "Featherbed" Evans speaking on this subject from these benches, unhappily no longer with US. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Not because of his criticisms of farming. He had the gist of the idea then. He knew. Now we are all mesmerised with the desire to keep the farming community going when it is much too big for our national economic resources.
There is an argument for each of the Clauses. The only continuity among them is that they are supposed to end on the next Guy Fawkes night. The right hon. Gentleman ought to make it the biggest bonfire ever. Let him stoke up now. In every Clause the, pattern is the same as it has been for the last ten years, and the language of the National Farmers' Union is still the same—"We propose, the Government accept; when the Government accept, shift your ground and add another four years, another five years; consoli-

date, build up, entrench, dig in, take it up another peg". We ought seriously to consider what the true position is.
I do not propose to spend long on the Common Market issue, although it was raised before you returned to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, but it is a serious proposition. However, whether we go in or not —and the present odds are that we will not—this kind of support must be reconsidered in absolutely basic terms. Our farming income is less than 5 per cent. of the total gross national product. The numbers employed in agriculture are not more than 500,000 as against a total employable force of 26 million.
Where do we have to put the onus for reinvestment in agriculture? It has to go into those areas which will produce, by virtue of their commodities, revenue which would benefit this country, or internationaly benefit sterling. But how in the world are we to sell dynamos, motor cars or capital goods to countries that need them if we cannot take their products—Polish or Danish eggs, Polish or Danish bacon, cucumbers or what we will from other countries? [Interruption.] The only farm in my constituency is that at Wormwood Scrubs, which is a model farm. Hammersmith's population is an industrial population.
If it is a question of payments on the dole versus farm subsidies, I am for avoiding payments on the dole. Various pants of the country are now facing a situation where this choice is arising, and there seems to be no ready answer. Although a fortnight ago the Chancellor injected certain measures into the economy in order to stimulate production, he knows as well as I do that these measures cannot be operative before six months. What are we to do until then? Are we to have this tightening-up process for six months, a climate of demand, a good Budget and then an election? Are these things to continue for ever? This kind of thing has to be settled here tonight. I can understand the right hon. Gentleman's dilemma as a member of the Government having to get some order into agriculture and I can understand the position now facing the industry and how this thing has been built up; but, surely, it is time that the Minister and his Department did some thinking about it.

Mr. Bullard: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he not


overlooking the trade between agriculture and local industries, especially internally? Is he not overlooking the fact that when development has taken place in agriculture, a very great deal of employment, and I would say the creation of a good deal of wealth, has taken place in other industry?

Mr. Tomney: I am not overlooking that, but it is not a big part of the national economy. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to such things as fertilisers and the fertiliser industry, I will tell him what is wrong with that for his own consumption.
Looking at the pattern which the Government propose for dispensing fertilisers and the methods by which the farmer is to purchase them, I can see no reason at all why the farming community should not purchase its fertilisers at source, from the wholesalers. What is the good of a policy which provides grants direct to the farmer which have to 13e spent in the retail market but which are based on wholesale prices? There are only four or five big firms in the business and they have it all! tied up between them. Why do we not do it the other way round? If we have x farms and we need x subsidies, why do we not say that they will be supplied on Government account from the source? The hon. Member knows that almost every commodity the farmer has to sell goes into the wholesale market, but he has to buy retail. This is the economics of Bedlam. Nobody else would do this. To make farming efficient, we must change to a proper system of economic accountancy. Before he left the N.F.U. Sir James Turner built so many built-in safeguards in this industry that everybody has a finger in the pie, and that is the difficulty.
We can go through this Bill Clause by Clause and see references to investment in land and the sale of land, and my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) raised a point about this earlier today, which I picked up. Marginal land and marginal farmers in the vicinity of or attached to large farms ought to have different financial arrangements. The net invested capital in farming should not produce a return of more than 6 or 7 per cent., but, in my opinion, the net farm capital investment is producing 40 per cent. What is the sense of having marginal farmers in difficulties and even going bankrupt when the State

could take over the farms, or buy the freehold, for instance, and let the farmer use the money direct instead of having subsidies? I see no harm at all in building up several associated little farms in conjunction with one huge farm unit which could bring into play the farm syndicate in regard to machinery. If marginal production is to be made economic, and the Government want a return, let the Government own the farming land. If it is necessary to do this, let us have it that way, instead of doing it the way we do, and not allow people to start farms who do not have the necessary capital or expertise to make a go of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington referred with some force to the provision of marketing boards for this industry. I think we all know of the success of the Milk Marketing Board, which deals primarily with one commodity, but I am not sure what the Committee dealing with meat marketing will produce, and before the right hon. Gentleman gets to it he had better start looking at one headache which may confront him, unless he ties the terms and conditions of marketing very tightly. Is there to be competition as between pig-meat, sheep and prime beef cattle in one central marketing board, or is there to be healthy competition between all three? Is one board to take charge of all these operations, and, if so, which commodity is to suffer? How much money has the country invested in either pigs or sheep? These things have to be looked at beforehand. It may be all right in the case of eggs and milk, but where there is a range of commodities competing for the same customers, coming from the same sources and marketed under one scheme, we could run into the most grievous difficulties, which would add greatly to farming costs.
There are other hon. Members who want to speak from this side of the House, and with greater claim than I have to represent farming interests. They have put up with me very well, but I want to say something about Clause 21. I have read it and reread it, and I do not know whether there is something wrong with me or with the wording or whether I understand it or not, but it seems to me to be nothing more than a calculated attempt by the Government to purchase a net tax loss of £350,000 per annum. If it


is not that, will the right hon. Gentleman tell me why it is being done? One would have thought that when the British housewife subsidises, as she does, to the extent of 3¼d. a pound the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, to keep the Caribbean area something like viable, that would have been an excessive penalty on the taxpayer, but here we find £150,000 being given away to Ireland, of all places, for sugar. This is an Irishism of the best. What is the reason for this? Is it to provide a balanced Irish agriculture, to cast a fatherly eye over Irish agriculture? I do not know what kind of thinking goes on in the Ministry, but if this is an example of it, then from now on the Minister will hear from me much more frequently in debates like this than he has done in the past.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I do not want to follow too closely the path which the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) has followed. It appeared to me that much of what he said was based on extremely inaccurate facts. I think that he said that British agriculture was fairly small and not very important. In fact, of course, it is Britain's biggest industry.

Mr. Tomney: No. Let me put——

Mr. Farr: I am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman can sit down. He was half a million out in the total number of people employed directly and indirectly by British agriculture.

Mr. Tomney: On a point of order. I do not mind the hon. Gentleman not giving way to me, but deliberately to misquote me and to misrepresent what I said is another matter. Hon. Members will recall hearing me say that British agriculture was the most highly mechanised and efficient in the world; and I could not say more than that.

Mr. Speaker: That is interesting, but it does not raise a point of order.

Mr. Farr: As I was saying, the hon. Gentleman was entirely inaccurate in stating that British agriculture was not very big or very important and that only half a million people were employed in association with it. He was just about half a million out in that over 1 million people in this country are engaged in

agriculture or in industries directly associated with it.
Some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks were too far fetched to warrant much consideration. For instance, he asked why it was that fertilisers were not supplied to farmers direct from wholesalers. If this is the sort of remark he makes, it shows how little consideration he has given to that matter or indeed to any other matter he raised. How could a five or ten cwt. load of fertilisers be sent 50 or 60 miles from a wholesaler's factory in a ten-ton bulk lorry for one order? This shows the valuable part which retailers play in the agricultural system.
I do not want to follow too closely the remarks of hon. Members on both sides on the Common Market or on nationalisation of the land. We have had one or two advocates from the benches opposite of nationalisation of the land. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why we have been blessed by the continuous presence, for the first time in my short experience in the House, of at least one Liberal Member during a debate on agriculture. It is satisfactory to know that the Liberal Party is taking such an interest in agriculture. Perhaps this is because at its recent conference much play was made on nationalisation of the land. That may be why the Liberal Party is represented here today.
I welcome the 25 Clauses of the Bill as a whole. The Bill is a sort of patchwork quilt made up of many different provisions woven together, but I cannot help but feel that, as we consider the Bill's different provisions, we are rather like the sailors of Odysseus who manned his ship on the journey home to the Isle of Ithaca. I am sure that hon. Members opposite are familiar with this story. All the sailors were so busy repairing the sails and trying to get every shred of canvas on the ship to carry them home to this fair isle which lay ahead that they did not notice on the horizon the storm, the calamity, the tempest about to engulf them which resulted in Odysseus's, vessel being shipwrecked.
I trust that the same fate does not await the structure of our agricultural support system as we toil tonight to repair or perhaps build up a little of the edifice. I wonder whether we are fully


aware of the implications of the storms which may lie ahead and of the threat to our agricultural system if we enter the Common Market.
I wish to make one or two points about same of the Clauses and about possible omissions from the Bill. I particularly welcome Clause 3, with its intention to provide an extra £35 million for the Farm Improvements Scheme. Like previous hon. Members I welcome the type of improvement which this represents. This is a form of grant which is, so to speak, put into the future. It is not a form of grant made available to farmers by way of deficiency payment. It is a real grant which the farmer gets in bricks and mortar and it helps him to became more efficient, whether or not we go into the Common Market.
I welcome Clauses 6 and 7. I cannot understand why the total of the grants to farmers' syndicates should be limited to £250,000. I should like my right hon. Friend to say why he thinks £250,000 should be the limit.
I welcome the forms of help outlined in Clauses 10 and 11 to improve winter keep. I share the thoughts of one or two hon. Members on this side. I feel that the ploughing up grants have played a very useful part in the past, but as I read the deliberations of the European Agricultural Commission, if we go into the Common Market there will be Mare incentive to cereal growers in this country to grow corn than perhaps farmers to rear livestock. The time has perhaps come when some of the money being spent on ploughing up grants should be channelled into other forms of grant to improve pastures.
Clause 19 deals with the allowances to people displaced from agricultural land. I wish to refer to an instance which occurred in my constituency recently. I wonder whether there should be included in this Clause words to the effect that should land which has been taken by a Government Department be no longer required by that Department it should be offered back to the original owner. I am aware that this is the custom of Government Departments at the moment, but what I cannot get a ruling on—and what I do not think is the custom—is whether Departments which do not wish

entirely to relinquish land which they have taken over but merely to let it to a farmer again, offer it back as a tenancy to the farmer from wham they commandeered it, perhaps freehold, in the first place.
Indeed, I know of one or two cases in which quite sizeable plots of land have been taken from small farmers to extend airfield runways, and hon. Members on both sides will appreciate that if a small farmer loses 20 or 30 acres out of 50 or 60 acres it makes a mess of his whole farming plan and his whole scheme of operations.
If there is any chance of this land being released by the Government Department which has taken it over, either as freehold or as a tenancy, then it should be offered, on the district valuer's valuation, as a freehold to the original vendor, or if it is for tenancy, it should be offered back to the original owner as a tenancy in the first place. I should like to see included in this Bill some provision to that effect. I can give my right hon. Friend chapter and verse of an instance in my constituency of this nature.
I want to mention one matter—and I hope that I shall be in order in doing this which I think could well be included in this Bill. I hope, in common with many hon. Members on both sides of the House, that I shall have the pleasure of serving on the Committee upstairs when the Bill is considered there, and quite possibly we may have a chance of introducing a new Clause to deal with this point if my right hon. Friend does not see fit to deal with it himself. The matter that I wish to raise is the wood pigeon menace at the moment. Until the half-price scheme for cartridges used for killing wood pigeons was abolished about two years ago, the numbers of wood pigeons in this country were being kept in check, but coinciding with the change over to cartridges being supplied only to rabbit clearance societies there has been a big increase in the numbers of wood pigeons.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite may think that this is amusing, but I am talking of parts of the country in which there has been a tremendous increase in the wood pigeon menace during the past few years.

Mr. Loughlin: I understand that some farmers are experiencing difficulty with coypus. Why not advocate subsidies to enable farmers to buy rubber boots so that they can chase the coypus?

Mr. Farr: The hon. Gentleman shows how unfamiliar he is with the provisions of this Bill, and indeed with many agricultural matters in that he is probably not aware that at the moment a grant is made to people who kill wood pigeons which are eating crops. All I am trying to do, and I think that it would be better if the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) did not interrupt me again, is to point out to the Minister that this grant could be applied in a different manner. I think that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West starts with a great disadvantage if he is not even aware of the existing grant.
The existing scheme of giving a grant to rabbit clearance societies to enable them to buy cheap cartridges to shoot wood pigeons is not wrong. I have three reasons for criticising the present scheme. Many people have written to me complaining that until about two years ago when cheap cartridges were made available to recognised wood pigeon shots the scheme worked fairly well and the numbers of wood pigeons were kept down.
The scheme was altered, and to qualify for cheap cartridges a shot had to be a member of a rabbit clearance society. By joining this society he received cheap cartridges for the wood pigeons he killed. My point is this. In many areas there are no rabbit clearance societies and therefore by default the wood pigeon menace is increasing. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West may think this is very funny but I have had three letters from constituents of his who apparently have appealed to him for assistance. That is probably why he finds this so amusing.

Mr. Loughlin: If it is true that constituents of mine have appealed to the hon. Gentleman—as far as I know they have not written to me—would not it have been courteous if the hon. Gentleman had approached me before disclosing this fact in the Chamber?

Mr. Farr: I was driven to disclose that fact by the rather flippant attitude adopted by the hon. Gentleman to the whole debate.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A large number of hon. Members want to take part in the debate. These tempestuous noises reduce the time available to do so.

Mr. Farr: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker.
There are instances in which professional pigeon shots would have to join as many as twenty different rabbit clearance societies all over the country to enable them to qualify for cheap cartridges for shooting wood pigeons. I suggest that there is a case for compiling a register of expert shots who can receive cheap cartridges to kill wood pigeons.
Finally, I give another example of why this scheme is not working satisfactorily. I have in mind a man, who is a recognised shot and has killed about 50,000 wood pigeons over past years. He sent a claim to a rabbit clearance society for cheap cartridges for wood pigeons that he had killed in the society's area. After some time his claim was returned by the secretary of the society, marked "No funds available". I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the scheme is not working too well at the moment and I ask him to consider these points to see whether he can include in the Bill some provision to remedy matters.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has been a little free with allegations against various quarters of the House, which I shall not follow. If what he said—and I put the most favourable construction on it—about the presence of the Liberal Party throughout the debate is meant to imply that this is a new departure, I can assure him to the contrary, because I have taken part in every Price Review debate since my election, and had cause to draft a Motion deploring the failure of the Government to supply time for that purpose during the last Session. But if he deplores, as I do, the presence of only 3·13 per cent. of the Members on his side, then I agree with him.
I welcome the Bill as far as it goes, subject to certain qualifications. In so far as the Bill is a series of complicated and diverse proposals, I found the way in which the Minister introduced it, and


the way in which he explained each Clause in some detail, of great assistance. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that, and I hope that it will be possible for whoever winds up the debate to deal with various other points which obviously could not be covered.
In so far as the purpose of the Bill is generally to assist the industry to be efficient—and it relates to marginal farming areas—[interruption.]—I hope that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) will not mind if I continue to interrupt him by carrying on with my speech—marketing and research, machinery sydicates, and is generally designed to stimulate co-operation—I believe that it places the right emphasis on our present agricultural policy.
During the debate on the Price Review that we normally have every year an opportunity is provided to take the pulse of the industry, and a long-term view of its prospects. Unfortunately, that debate did not take place last year, but this debate affords the same opportunities. [Interruption.] I ask the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West, with great courtesy, to be kind enough to reserve his remarks either for outside the Chamber or for a time when someone slightly further away from him is speaking.
We cannot consider the worth of the Bill save against the background of our application to join the European Economic Community. I must be careful not to digress and get out of order, but I do not think that it is possible to assess the Bill's merits unless we also consider our pending application to join. The first job of the Minister of Agriculture in the formulation of agricultural policies is to prepare the industry for entry into the Community—if we assume that there is a real prospect of our going in. But even if we are not going in—and I hope that we are—radical changes must still be brought about in our agriculture structure. I regard the Bill as the first major step in that direction, and I shall shortly give my reasons.
My only regret is that the Minister has been a late starter in this matter. So, for that matter, has his party. It is now possible to talk in this House about agriculture and the Common Market without being howled down, as was my experience about six weeks before the

Prime Minister made the famous announcement that we were going into the Common Market.
We must realise that although production grants are a vital and integral part of our agricultural economy, and that should we enter the Common Market the evidence is that those grants will be able to continue—not all of them but many of them and certainly most of those that we are discussing in the Bill—by 1970 the whole of our deficiency payment system will have come to an end, and we shall have a totally different method of farm support. In my view the Government will not be suddenly faced with a situation in which deficiency payments will have to end and in which we shall have to rely simply upon production grants.
In short, I do not take the view, expressed in The Times of 31st October, that the Government may face the prospect of having suddenly to cut off these deficiency payments at one stroke if the Common Market countries decide that this is necessary in the transitional stage. In saying this I am bearing in mind the promises made during the passage of the 1957 Measure, and also the attitude adopted by the Lord Privy Seal in the negotiations. But in the light of our application we are entitled to ask two questions.
First, are these grants adequate, both in their duration and in their amount? Secondly, are there other objectives which should similarly be grant-aided? If we accept that the trend of Government policy is away from subsidies and towards production grants—and I think it is the right trend—will that shift be carried out with sufficient generosity and speed, and for a sufficient duration, under the terms of the Bill? The two major provisions—the £3 million increase under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts and the £35 million increase under Part II of the 1957 Act—go a long way. Whether they go far enough I shall consider shortly.
I regard these production grants as being akin to the grants for structural improvements that operate in the agriculture policies of the Six. If we compare the grants that we are paying with those that are being paid in Europe by our prospective competitors we find that they are not as generous as they


might be. I shall not go into very great detail on this matter, because that would probably be out of order, but I would point out that Germany, under her 1961 Green Plan, is spending £65 million on structural improvements—and the experts who are reporting to the Corn-mission in Brussels at this moment recommended the expenditure of an even larger sum.
Under France's Agricultural Orientation Law "Rural Action" zones have been established which are buying up derelict estates and peripheral smallholdings and amalgamating them into larger holdings and reselling them. Up to 50 per cent. of the loss is being borne by the Exchequer. I am relating these facts all the time to what we are doing for British agriculture.

Mr. J. T. Price: I do not follow the hon. Member's argument about the comparison between this country and Germany. I leave aside the fact that my view of these matters is quite different from his. He says that Germany is putting more than £60 million into improvement grants this year, but he appears to forget that under the terms of the Bill we are raising the ceiling of our improvement grants to £90 million. It is not fair to make comparisons which are unfavourable to this country. I disapprove of the grant altogether, as the Minister knows, but we must be fair about this. Let us not cry "stinking fish" of our own country when we have done so much in many ways.

Mr. Thorpe: I take the hon. Member's point. It is not my intention to belittle our effort. But I must point out that OUT £90 million is spread over a number of years, whereas the £65 million that Germany is spending will go in one year alone. That is spending at a much higher rate. Seen in that light I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that my criticism is reasonable, as is my comparison.
If we look at the situation in Italy and the Netherlands, where structural improvement grants are continuing, we see that the emphasis is upon helping to make agriculture more efficient, and to capitalise and restock machinery, as opposed to granting consumer subsidies and other subsidies of the kind that we

have. The Bill goes a long way in this direction, but there are certain valid criticisms to be made of it.
The first is the criticism that has already been made about the termination dates, under Clause 1, of the additional grants under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts. That argument has been canvassed, and I shall not repeat it. But I suggest that many farms have not yet taken advantage of the scheme. I know of certain estates which have phased plans which will tide them over for a few years to come, and we must be very careful before we end arbitrarily what has been an extremely valuable aid to the whole agriculture community.
Criticism has also been made of Clause 2. I welcome the four years' extension, but the suggestion has been made that the payment of subsidies should be prolonged by seven years. That is the view of the National Farmers' Union, and it has been the view expressed to me by many farmers with whom I have discussed the matter.
The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne), who is a much valued constituent of mine, referred to the question of the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act, 1955. I suggest that if the Bill is intended to provide production grants where they are thought necessary to improve the whole structure of the industry, this is a cause which ought to be very high on the list. My hon. and learned friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who represents an area particularly affected by the 1955 Act, has told me that the county has already had between 80 and 90 schemes approved by the Ministry, and there are another dozen schemes at present with the Ministry for approval. There are further 30 to 40 applications before the local county council and far from the pace of the applications for grants slackening under this Act, it is in fact accelerating.
I believe this to be something vital for the future of our countryside. Although there are many improvements needed with regard to roads at present for the tourist and farming industries—again I must be careful not to be out of order—if Dr. Beeching operates his axe in rural areas, as we fear he will, the provisions in the Bill will become even more vital


to the people who earn their living in our rural areas. I welcome the provisions in Clause 9. We have a long way to go before the price at the farm gate and the price charged to the housewife are brought closer together. There are still many middle-men making a "killing" out of British agriculture.
I have one suggestion to make in relation to Clauses 6 and 7. The National Farmers' Union mentioned various other processes which it would like to see grant-aided. I wish to mention only one. I have always believed that one effect of Britain joining the Common Market would be an increase of nearly 50 per cent. in the cost of cereals. This was mentioned by the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard). That would be bound to have an inflationary effect on imported feedingstuffs and compound feedingstuffs and hit the milk, pig and poultry farmers. I am told that in Europe farmers tend to buy their barley and wheat and mix it with oil cake on the farm. In this country we buy from the compounders for the most part and find it economic so to do. But were the price of cereals to rise, as I think would be inevitable were we to join the Common Market, many farmers would have to consider mixing their own feedingstuffs on the farm.
I am told that this would effect a saving of about £3 to £4 a ton, when transport costs are considered, such as the cost of sending the barley and wheat to Bristol or Liverpool where it is compounded and the oil cake added. There may well be a case for farmers to mix their own feedingstuffs in future and to buy their oil cake. The small farmers would probably have to buy their cereals. There might be a case for making a grant under the Clause for the installation of machinery, preferably on a cooperative basis, in order that this operation could be carried out.
Regarding Clause 5 I asked the Minister whether registration related only to the retailer suppliers of fertiliser and, as I feared, the right hon. Gentleman answered in the affirmative. Since large sums of public money are being expended I hope that there is some reduction in this year's Price Review, and that the Minister will try to look behind the practice of the retailers. Per

haps the right hon. Gentleman may take a leaf out of the notebook of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health who tackled some of the drug manufacturers who were charging exorbitant prices and sheltering behind their monopolistic position.
I remember when the hon. Member for Torrington and I challenged a £28 million vote for fertilisers. I will not say what were the grounds upon which the vote was challenged by the hon. Member for Torrington which were somewhat different from mine, but I suggested that it was outrageous that large sums of public money should be spent to help the farmers to buy a product which had been artificially inflated in price by reason of the monopolistic tendencies in the industry, and I hope that on some occasion the Minister will take a look at the fertiliser packing firms.

Mr. Soames: I think that, inadvertently, I may have misled the hon. Member earlier in the debate. He will see that Clause 5 (2) states:
… where any person carrying on or proposing to carry on a business of supplying fertilizers…
I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member. This does not limit the matter to any particular type of trade or section of a trade. I will look at the matter between now and the next stage of the Bill. But it is the intention, by the Clause as it is drafted at present, to cover anybody who supplies a farmer direct with fertilisers.

Mr. Thorpe: I am grateful to the Minister. I must be careful not to fall back on legal arguments in the interpretation of the Clause. I should have thought that this Clause related solely to persons, whether manufacturers or retailers, who supply farmers directly. If the manufacturer should not supply the farmer direct, but supplied a wholesaler or retailer, he would he outside the ambit of the Clause as it is drafted. This is a point which might be considered, and I am grateful to the Minister for his interjection.
Clause 19 deals with the question of compensation. The right hon. Gentleman said that this places the tenant in the same position as any other person whose property is compulsorily acquired.


With respect I would say that that is not quite so. It is perfectly true that there is a great need for better compensation. At the moment it is either a year's rent or a proportion of the year's profit. But, clearly, the Government are right to have done something about this. In subsection (1, b) there appears the word "may". Instead of this being a permissive power, I think that the Government's policy should be to redraft to read "shall" so that this is mandatory. As at present drafted the Clause gives a discretion which is vested in the acquiring authority. In all the other legislation where this discretion is vested in an acquiring authority, whether it be housing or agricultural legislation, it is a discretion which is very rarely operated.

Mr. William Yates: I think that the hon. Member has put his finger on an important point which is to be taken up by three hon. Members on this side of the House with the Shropshire constituencies and the National Farmers' Union. I am in sympathy with what he wants to do.

Mr. Thorpe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think we shall find that on this occasion, as upon many others. We are in agreement.
I suggest that the Government might look at the provisions in the Liverpool Corporation Act which, as hon. Members will recall gave power to Liverpool to take over and to flood Treweryn. In Section 42 of that Act it was mandatory on the acquiring authority to set up an assessing tribunal composed of representatives of both parties to the negotiations with an independent legal chairman. Perhaps this point might be raised more properly during the Committee stage.
Whether we go into the Common Market or not, I think it right that the emphasis in agriculture should be directed away from deficiency payments and subsidies and directed more to production grants. The 1957 Act will have to be abolished if we go into the Common Market; but were we to stay out the 1957 Act will anyway "bust". I believe this to be a useful Measure which could be strengthened in many ways, but in all I warmly welcome it.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I do not agree with all the remarks of the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), but I think that he put two very pertinent questions to the Minister to which I hope the Government spokesman will reply. The hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance that the production grants referred to in the Bill will continue should we center the Common Market. If they do not the whole thing would be destroyed. But I do not think that I have ever heard a clear statement from the Government during the negotiations about the future of these grants which are very important to the agricultural industry.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the fairness of his comparison with the German plan. The Germans are destroying small farms and amalgamating the peasant holdings, which is a very extensive operation. No doubt it is one upon which we should have to embark ourselves were we to go into the Common Market. In this Bill, which he calls a Bill of bits and pieces, my right hon. Friend is endeavouring to increase the efficiency of farmers large and small, but especially the small farmers. That is why I welcome the Measure. It is a Bill of bits and pieces, but they are very good bits and pieces.
I have always believed that Lord Williams made a very wise move when he brought in the Hill Farming Bill, opposed him on that Measure and said that he must go further down the hill to deal with marginal land and livestock rearing. Eventually that was done and it has done a tremendous lot of good in more distant parts of the country, low there are two defects to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. One is the habit in administration of always seeking alternative tenders. In a rural area there is usually one local builder. In order to get the farm improvement grant the farmer has to have a survey made and get a plan, and that is a costly business. If there has to be an alternative tender it means that someone from outside the district has to come in and tender. That involves extra expense.
I do not want to go into the details nor to cast aspersions on a very noble trade, but this does rather tend to collusion. I should have thought that now,


after all the experience of thirteen or fourteen years, the Ministry should be able to tell what is the right kind of tender for a particular job. When such a tender is received the Ministry should be able to vet it without in remote areas going through all the business of having alternative tenders. I hope that that matter will be brought to the attention of the Minister and those administering the scheme because in the remote parts of my constituency it causes increasing irritation.
A second point we have to consider, especially in relation to the farm improvement schemes, is whether it is right to have a level 33½ per cent. for all improvements. It is perfectly clear in a case such as the Minister spoke about of a grain store or cattle yard that the remainder of the expenditure which the owner has to put up is a fair proportion, but that is not so in the case of farm roads. There is an unequal burden in remote areas where a man has to live at the end of a very long farm road compared with a man on a road which is repairable by the public at large. There is a case for being far more generous in this Bill and others which we may consider for the improving and making of farm roads. It would make a lot of difference to life in a rural community, and it would be a good investment for the Government, if they raised the grant on a farm road to something very much more than 33½ per cent.
Allied to roads there is another matter of great importance to many of us who represent rural constituencies. That is the terrible burden on the moorland sheep farmer which is caused through traffic on the roads. I can think of a man who says that he lost fifty ewes on the roads last year and got no recompense. A motorist going to a holiday resort dashes along the roads and kills a ewe or a lamb. That becomes such a great burden on the moorland farmer that some of them are giving up the keeping of sheep. Only 33½ per cent. can be granted for the fencing of a road.
Many of us have tried to get the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister of Transport to work together to see that the roads are properly fenced and that the slaughter of ewes and lambs is discontinued. If my hon. Friend the Parlia-

mentary Secretary is to reply, I should like him to think this over. If the Secretary of State for Scotland is to reply to the debate, it is all the more important that this should be dealt with because farmers in Scotland must also be suffering in this respect.

Mr. Jeger: Does the right hon. Member appreciate that by closing down 2,000 stations which are handling livestock the policy of the Government will force more and more animals on to the road and there will be more losses caused to farmers thereby?

Mr. Turton: I do not think the hon. Member has quite appreciated the point. The closing of a railway branch line will not stop nor increase the straying of sheep on the roads. I know that his intentions are sound, but they are directed more at Dr. Beeching than at me. Let us remain good friends and remember that moorland sheep straying on the roads through holiday traffic cause a tremendous problem. There is great cruelty, apart from the sheep which are killed outright, because often they are injured and then go away on to the moor to die. In either case there is great loss for the moorland farmers. They are not men of great substance and when fifty ewes out of a flock of 200 are killed it represents a terrible burden.

Mr. Archie Manuel: This is a very intriguing point. The right hon. Member mentioned Scotland and naturally hon. Members from Scottish constituencies are interested. Although in the Highland areas there are many unfenced roads, I believe that in the southern counties it is an offence not to fence a road where sheep can wander on to it. Is the right hon. Member asking for a grant for the death of sheep or a grant for the fencing of roads?

Mr. Turton: I am speaking of farm improvements in which a 33½ per cent. grant is not enough. On a long stretch of road, probably two miles of sheep stray, far too big a burden is placed on a small farmer who has to pay 66 per cent. of the cost of fencing. I think this problem exists not only in my constituency but in many others.
I thought the Minister raised the veil a little on the winter keep grant and the grassland renovation grant. I am not yet


clear, however, how the winter keep grant will operate. He has told us that £2 an acre cannot be paid, if there is a ploughing-up grant. No one would try for the £2 an acre grant if he could get £7 10s. an acre for ploughing up. Perhaps my right hon. Friend meant this to apply to grassland renovation rather than to winter keep grant.
I do not understand how the happy farmers who are to get £2 an acre for growing winter keep, oats or roots with kale, are to be selected. Will it be general that everyone will get the £2 an acre grant for providing winter keep, which is a common occupation for the whole agricultural population? I shall be grateful to whoever winds up the debate if he will explain the administration of this grant.
The grassland renovation grant is even more difficult to understand. We are told that the cost of administering the grant will be 10 per cent. That is extremely high. I realise that the cost of administration of all these grants is high, but I never heard of it being so high as 10 per cent. I find it hard to distinguish between what sort of operation I may perform on my grassland to qualify for the grant of £4 and what I may do which will not qualify.
Before we pass this considerable sum of money we should be more satisfied that the Minister has clearly in mind how he will administer these two grants; how he will "police" them and see that no fraud is involved. Before we grant public money we have to be quite satisfied that it will be directed at a selected number of people who are trying to make their farming efficient and not at the general run of the agricultural population. It is curious that we have not heard the total sum that the Minister is inviting Parliament to devote to these two grants. It is quite true that one will cost £2,700,000 in the first year, but it is a three-year grant, and I think it would have been more proper for Parliament to have been told what is the amount of money to be voted for the grassland improvement grant and also for the winter keep grant.
I would make one final plea on these two grants—I have seen in my experience far too much money wasted on land that has not been properly drained. I am told

that one will not get these grants if one is also getting any other grant. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that that does not apply to a drainage grant. I have often felt that it would have been wiser never to have allowed a ploughing grant at all unless the Minister was satisfied either that the land was properly drained or that a drainage grant had been received. I have often seen land in my constituency and elsewhere that has been ploughed up at the generous grant of £7 10s. per acre and I have seen it after some three years going back to reeds and wasteland through lack of drainage.
Therefore, I hope that in this grassland renovation we shall first be quite satisfied that it is so well drained that advantage can be taken of grassland renovation. I have been critical of the Bill, but I think that it is a very good Measure. We shall want to look at it in Committee to try and make it a little bit better.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: I was very pleased to be able to listen to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). He endeared himself to me because on a great many of the points that he elaborated I thoroughly agree with him, particularly on the grants for winter keep and grassland renovation. These were probing questions, and I hope that we shall get a reply to them by the Parliamentary Secretary.
I join with those hon. Members who have asked that the areas envisaged in the Bill should be widened. We shall have an argument about that in Committee if I am lucky enough to get on it.
It is difficult for me to select one Clause to concentrate upon when I am interested in all of the Clauses. I shall deal with one or two of the Clauses which are of terrific interest in my constituency. I was here when the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Bills came up for Second Reading and took part in both debates. Those Measures transformed the hill land in Wales. It is now a changed countryside altogether, in spite of the speech that we have had from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney). I


ask the Parliamentary Secretary why after fifteen years' experience of these Acts, and the Hill Farming Act in particular, there has not been some new comprehensive development. One would have thought that after fifteen years' experience something new would have been brought out in the list of improvements that come under that Act. I have seen nothing of the kind so far. I think that the Act should be extended for some time because we have not covered many of the areas concerned.
Recently a query was raised by the farming organisation, the N.F.U., in Brecon and Radnor as to what benefits material and social, had resulted from the money spent on hill farm improvements. The reply submitted by the headquarters of the National Farmers' Union, which I hope the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will make a note of, was:
The ploughing and reseeding of large tracts of hill land has enabled more stock to be carried, thus adding to the production, turnover and profitability of hill farms.
I should be very much concerned about the future livelihood of my constituents and others in mid-Wales if ever my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North became Minister of Agriculture. We can easily demonstrate the practical work that has been done under these schemes. A great deal has been done with regard to farm houses and buildings, and private roads to farms have been much improved, and I agree that there ought to be a higher grant in respect of these.
In Wales, 32 per cent. of the money already spent has been on farm buildings, 18 per cent. on housing, 13 per cent. on manuring and reseeding farm pasture, general fencing 9 per cent. and roads 4 per cent. The real test is whether those places in Wales are better off because of these Acts. Taking the three counties, two that I represent, Brecon and Radnor, and in addition Montgomery, since 1939 the number of cattle has increased from 167,907 to 239,320, The number of sheep has increased by half a million, despite the 1947 disaster, and half a million increase in sheep means something to this great nation of ours.
It may be the continuation of good Labour Party policy. I would compliment the Ministers, the officers and staff

on the very efficient way in which they have dealt with these comprehensive schemes in trying to get a finality about them different from that of three years ago. Quite a number of schemes have now been completed. Incidentally, I say to the Minister that, when he suggests that there are arguments about continuing this scheme, that during 1960–61 a hundred more schemes were submitted in the three mid-Wales counties, which shows that there is still need for the scheme to be extended. The figures for Brecon, Radnor and Montgomery show an increase in the number of completed schemes of 55–60 per cent. over 1960.
I am apprehensive about the present situation because one in every three of the schemes in Wales is being rejected. I would point out that after fifteen years the farmers may be entirely different people. For example, a farmer who had little idea about hill farming schemes and little farming education may have been replaced by a young farmer, perhaps his son, with an agricultural education and a different outlook altogether. There are a number of farms which have not taken advantage of these schemes. I do not know why they were not regarded as eligible in the first place or why no application was made in respect of them. A survey should be conducted to discover why they have not been brought into the scheme.
I want an assurance that where schemes have been submitted up to 1963 and money has been allocated a reasonable period will be given for the schemes to be finished. This point was put to met last week by a hill farmer who had submitted a scheme. I gathered from the Minister, although he went over the point quickly in his opening remarks, that a reasonable period would be given. The Parliamentary Secretary nods his head, and I can tell my constituent that everything is all right and that he can go on with the scheme.
I am concerned about the future. Farmers should be allowed to amend comprehensive schemes in the light of changing circumstances. Some schemes which are on the Ministry's books were submitted ten years ago, since when circumstances have changed, and surely the comprehensive schemes ought to be changed, too. The Ministry's reply is, "We cannot change comprehensive


schemes." The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but I can give him examples of this.
What is the attitude towards unfinished schemes and what is the reason for them? Are they unfinished because of the cost, or because of the difficulty of finding capital? This point has been raised before, but I shall raise it as often as possible, because I can find no practical reason for this gap between the number of schemes started and the number completed.
I do not suppose that I shall be given tonight all the answers I want, because I understand that a Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is to reply to the debate. We never seem to have a reply from Wales. I shall be glad to get a letter in reply, for anything is better than nothing.
Does the Ministry always bring the cost up to date? I remember when both parties were not prepared to consider these schemes, but I am sure that experience has shown them to be a good thing. What is the relationship between farm improvement schemes and hill farming schemes? Is there a tendency on the part of farmers to drop the improvement schemes and to turn to the hill farming schemes? There should be a better spirit of co-operation among the people who are concerned with these schemes. Up to 31st December, 1961, 17,464 schemes had been submitted for farm improvements in Wales and over a quarter of them had been rejected. I wonder why. There is one reason why there should be an expansion in hill farming schemes. A greater mileage of roads has become the responsibility of county councils, and more roads have been adopted, providing access to farms which previously had not found it possible to apply for these schemes. That in itself should increase the number of schemes.
I want to see an extension of the period of payment of subsidies for hill sheep and cattle. Some interesting points have been made about hill cattle, and I do not want to follow them, but I would stress that these subsidies are very useful in the uplands, in particular in my constituency. But the four-year period is rather short. Surely it should be seven years or even more. Those who have

specialised flocks of sheep and breeding ewes need a longer period. We must remember that we have not yet recovered all the losses of the 1947 disaster.
It is interesting to pose the question: why is reaming livestock encouraged instead of dairy farming? I do not want to go into the question of the Common Market, but if I have the opportunity I should go in for livestock and not for dairy farming. I must record that there has been consistency in the upkeep of the breeding ewes in Central Wales. The group of mid-Wales counties produced 53·9 per cent. of the breeding ewes for the whole of Wales; and Brecon, Radnor and Montgomery produced 35·1 per cent. of them. These figures are sufficient to combat any criticism on this side of the House that subsidies ought not to be given in respect of hill sheep or cattle. The more we can encourage the rearing of sheep in hill lands the more mutton and lamb will come on to the market. I say this despite what we hear about the Common Market. If I were a pro-Common Market person, I could make a powerful speech on this, because I do not see any mutton or lamb in any of the Continental countries.
The home production figures of meat for 1959–60 are very interesting. Pork production in this country was 93·4 per cent. of consumption. Beef production was 68 per cent. Mutton and lamb production was only 39·8 per cent. I am not saying that this is the case in the dining rooms of the House of Commons, but one never sees Welsh lamb on the menus of any of the London restaurants.

Mr. Cyril Bence: One sees Scottish lamb.

Mr. Watkins: I do not know about that. That is a matter for Scottish Members of Parliament. If any money is available for research, there should be research into the marketing of Welsh mutton and lamb with a view to getting a greater production than 39·8 per cent.
I come to Clause 16, which provides for the dissolution of the Agricultural Land Commission and the Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission. I was in the House of Commons when Lord Williams, then Mr. Tom Williams, produced sufficient argument to keep the Commission and the Sub-Commission


going. I pay this tribute to the Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission. Whatever else it has done, it has produced an excellent report on agriculture in mid-Wales. The sorry part about it is that half of its recommendations have not been put into operation.
I must ask some questions. Shall we have any annual reports in the future on the administration of these lands which will now go to another Department? Each year we have had the advantage of an annual report. We have just had the 15th annual report. What branch of the Ministry will administer these lands? Despite what the Minister said, it appears from his own report issued last week that the Forestry Commission got only 796 acres of land out of 2,815 acres sold in Wales. I hope that it will not all go to the Forestry Commission, because there is good agricultural land. It would be better devoted to agriculture than to forestry. It is important that we should know what Department will administer it and be responsible to the Minister in future.
Who is to do it in Wales? Are we to be looked after from Whitehall again, or are we going to keep the staff in the Aberystwyth office? What will happen to future land? If a landlord has not got the hard cash but has land to give by way of death duties, do I understand that all the land in future will go to the Forestry Commission? Who is to administer it—not the Forestry Commission?
The same applies to land freed by the Board of Trade. What will happen to the little market gardens which the Minister of Health is now pressing regional hospital boards to get rid of? The argument is that, even if it is dearer to get vegetables outside rather than from their own market gardens, the boards should get rid of them. Who is to get all this land?
I shall not say any more because my speeches are usually very probing and succinct. I am very glad that the Bill provides opportunities. I was glad to hear my hen. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) pay tribute to what the Government are now doing in connection with co-operation in agriculture. I have previously argued that this should be done. I am very glad that what Tudor Watkins

says one day the Government do afterwards. I am interested to find that this is now part of Government policy, and I very much welcome it.
I regret that we cannot get an extension so that the scheme can continue past the date when it should come to an end. I regret this very much because there is sufficient evidence available in Montgomery and elsewhere to show—and I could give figures to the Minister to prove that £1 million in grants could usefully be applied in Wales alone—that the scheme should be extended for at least another two years. However, I welcome the Bill and its proposals, and I am grateful for what is offered. I am also pleased that I have had sufficient will-power not to delve deeply into all the Clauses, which I could easily have done.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. William Yates: I am sure that the House will be grateful for that encouraging speech made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins). Indeed, if ever I heard a speech which absolutely justified Conservative farming policy in respect of sheep, he certainly made it. But before he runs away with the idea that sheep come only from Wales, I would remind him that in The Wrekin area of Shropshire we have some of the best sheep in the world.

Mr. J. Idwal Jones: They are Welsh sheep, though.

Mr. Yates: No; but some of the most successful farmers in The Wrekin have come from Wales, and it is for me to pay tribute to their farming and the work they have done in the constituency.
I do not often speak on farming matters. For me this is somewhat of a maiden speech, so I hope the House will excuse me if I confine myself to Clause 19, which, after all, was the part of my Private Member's Bill which I withdrew in favour of the Government and for the pledges given at the time by the Minister. I listened with sympathy to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) because my father farmed in Westmorland and all the problems relating to sheep I recall as being relevant to Westmorland farming. My brother also farms in Suffolk, but I do not.
I keep bees. It has not been a very good year for bees, and I have had to give them some honey of last year to make sure that they get through this winter. It was a particularly bad spell last week when we had snow. Bearing this in mind, and remembering that there have been grants for various things—and one hon. Member wanted a grant for the shooting of pheasant with wood pigeon cartridges—I am wondering whether there might be a "bee grant." I am not asking this because I consider that something tremendous might be given, but rather because it seems not unreasonable that an hon. Member should ask for a small bee grant for winter honey.
Although I did not understand all of the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney), I found myself in some sympathy with certain of his remarks. He certainly hit one great problem on the head when he said that many people are anxious about the farming price structure, our grants and the future of the farming industry. However, farmers have told me that they do not like the grant system but would prefer, if they could obtain it, the right price for their produce in the shops. I was in sympathy with the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North when he quoted facts and figures on this topic.
I have been asked to speak for the Shropshire branch of the National Farmers Union and also to follow up the intervention made by the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) in which he referred to Clause 19. In this Clause there seems to be no mandatory right or obligation on any authority taking agricultural land for Government purposes to pay compensation. I withdrew my Bill in favour of the Government bringing forward this Clause, and it would be in keeping now if I said that, for my part, I am grateful to the Minister of Agriculture and for all he has done, and I pay tribute to him for the pledge which he has honoured.
However, my farming fraternity in Shropshire—and, no doubt, the hon. Member for Devon, North—feels that the Clause does not go far enough. So, rather than have a nasty row in Committee, would the Minister look at the Clause again. Meanwhile, I will read him an extract from a letter I have received from

the Shropshire branch of the National Farmers' Union.
To the extent that Clause 19 removes this statutory inhibition it is welcomed by the Shropshire County Branch of the N.F.U. Yet the Clause is purely permissive and dependant upon 'the opinion' of the acquiring Authority. This is quite unsatisfactory. There is no obligation on the acquiring Authority to make any payment under the Clause, nor is there any measure of the quantum of such compensation or the basis on which it should be assessed.
This is an important matter, because in The Wrekin we are to have a town of about 90,000 inhabitants and we shall all be involved in problems of compensation, land tribunals and the like. I therefore hope that the Minister understands that I take this matter very seriously.
The only other matter that I wish to mention is the question of the local authorities. In Shropshire, and no doubt in other parts of the country, there are local auhorities or county authorities who own land. They acquired ownership after the First World War to resettle soldiers. Clause 19 does not appear to cover occupiers of land already owned by local authorities. There are many cases in Shropshire and no sale or leasing of land of the type referred to in the introduction to Clause 19 (1) is involved. This might mean that a tenant occupying an agricultural holding owned by a county council might be taken over by another acquiring authority. Is his position safeguarded under Clause 19? I doubt it. Here again to save a nasty brawl in Committee, I would be grateful if the Government would now be kind enough to examine the point.
These then are the two major points I have been asked to bring to the attention of the House by the local and county N.F.U. branches. I should like to congratulate the Minister on the Bill. It is clear that he is already beginning to visualise the future and the Common Market. Although in Shropshire we are incredibly proud of our sheep, we are also incredibly proud of this Chamber and the oak which hon. Members see around them. It was all taken to Newport, Shropshire, from an area 50 miles around the town. It was prepared in Ashworth's Yard and brought here and put into this Chamber.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I should like to follow the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates)


in his tributes to Shropshire. I spent many years there and it is a county that I really love.
I should like to begin my speech by referring to a personal attack made upon me by an hon. Member who is no longer in this Chamber.

Mr. W. Yates: You have, of course, informed the Hon. Member?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): I have not told him anything.

Mr. Loughlin: The intervention by the hon. Member for The Wrekin is quite valid, but I have not had the opportunity of saying to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) that I would be replying to him. I indicated to him as he sat here that I would say something, but I have not had the opportunity of having a personal conversation with the hon. Member.
The allegation made was very serious, in that he charged me with a dereliction of my duty as a Member of Parliament. He was talking about wood pigeons and the possibility of getting additional subsidies for cartridges to shoot the poor things. This, coming on top of the demands for subsidy of one kind or another in every possible aspect of agriculture, was, of course, slightly amusing. I made a flippant intervention which seemed to upset the hon. Gentleman. He then, in defence of himself, said that three of my constituents, having written to me and having failed to get some assistance from me, had then written to him so that he could deal with their complaints. I challenge that remark because I do not believe it is true. I challenge it because I think the hon. Member for Market Harborough deliberately fabricated it as a method of replying to an intervention. I challenge the hon. Member to produce the letters within 24 hours—it is no good producing some letters in a fortnight's time—to prove that the statement he made was correct.
Indeed, I would have thought that the normal courtesies of this House would have required that if there were any element of truth in what the hon. Gentleman said, he should have approached me privately, as we all do when we get letters of this kind from

other people's constituents. Until the hon. Member produces the proof or until he withdraws the allegation I shall return to this subject again and again.
Now let me turn to the Bill. I want to speak briefly because I understand that a number of Members still want to speak. Periodically we get what to me is the humiliating spectacle of so many people who are farmers in their own right coming to this House and either congratulating the Minister on an extension of farming subsidies as in this Bill, or pleading with the Minister to provide more subsidies, or opposing him because the amount is not enough.
Here we are again tonight dealing with the question of subsidies to the tune of £40 million, if I read the Bill correctly. I wish that hon. Members, particularly those on the other side of the House, would apply to agricultural subsidies the same principle that they apply to other subsidies. I wish they would be as generous in their examination of council house subsidies as they are in their examination of agricultural subsidies.

Mr. Stodart: May I ask the hon. Gentleman in his turn, when he talks about this "humiliating spectacle", to be as generous when he refers to agriculture as he is when he refers to industry which is protected by tariffs in nearly every case. It is very much the same thing, and, indeed, comes to the same thing in the long run.

Mr. Loughlin: I do not want to digress, but I suggest to the hon. Member that there is a clear distinction between a tariff and the pumping of public money into industry to the tune of £4,000 million since 1947. I would be in favour of ensuring the economic viability of agriculture, and particularly in the case of the great percentage of small farmers in this country, if the Government of the day were prepared to put subsidies into farming where they were needed. What I fear is that an enormous number of big farmers by their own efficiency do not need subsidies.

Mr. Stodart: What about the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis)?

Mr. Loughlin: It applies equally to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart), who is a very large farmer in his own right. I think it is essential that we should give subsidies to the small farmer, but we ought at least to begin to devise some mechanism whereby the large farmer who does not need a subsidy does not get it.
Now, a brief word about grants for the promotion of co-operation in agriculture and for the promotion of efficient marketing. Horticulture is one of the really difficult sides of the industry which ought to be treated with great consideration. I welcome the £l½ million out of the £40 million which is to be allocated to it. I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) who spoke earlier about the joint use by farmers of agricultural implements. He spoke about co-operation in this sense and he said that he wanted to see the extension of the joint use of farm machinery through the operation of syndicates. But then he hastily haggled and remarked that he did not want to see co-operatives.
Why not co-operatives? There are many farmers' co-operatives which are not associated in any way with the Co-operative Union but which are doing a wonderful job for the farmers who are participating members of them. I see no reason why, for instance, the farming community should not get the best out of normal business practice in regard to fertilisers. I see no reason why the two main fertiliser producers in this country, which, heaven knows, on the basis of their own record have had a very good cut out of the subsidies paid to agriculture, should not supply farmers direct at wholesale prices. They can supply farmers direct at wholesale prices through co-operatives.
The farming community should get down to the job of creating co-operatives. The Shropshire Co-operative Society is an exceptionally good example. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) referred to a co-operative society in his part of the world. This is the way to overcome the problem of farmers having to pay retail prices for fertilisers through agents because of the failure of the producers to set up a wholesale organisation.
I wonder whether we are tackling marketing in the right way. There has been an enormous improvement in the prepacking done by the horticultural side of the industry in this country, but it has been by no means as good as has been done by its competitors in other countries.

Mr. W. Yates: Does the hon. Member think that the whole farming industry is constructed wrongly, being horizontal, and should be conducted vertically right to the consumer?

Mr. Loughlin: I shall not follow that herring tonight.

Mr. Yates: Why not?

Mr. Loughlin: I have said that I would sit down very soon. I should be prepared to discuss it on another occasion. Heaven knows, if hon. Members have the opportunity to hear me make a brief speech, they ought to take advantage of it.
In my view, we ought to tackle marketing largely at the wholesale marketing source. The wholesale markets of this country are really something out of this world. In most instances, there are more "fiddles" in the wholesale marketing of horticultural products than there are in a philharmonic orchestra. If we are to consider the efficiency of the marketing of horticultural products, we must consider the whole issue of the ownership and running of wholesale markets.
In some ways I welcome the Bill. In some senses it will help farmers, particularly hill farmers. In other ways I am somewhat disappointed that we are continuing the paying of indiscriminate subsidies to farmers. I shall have a little to say in Committee, and if the hon. Member for The Wrekin is a member of the Committee, he will enjoy my contributions.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: It is well known to the House that I am a fairly large farmer and that I get the benefit of these subsidies, which I very much appreciate. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) and with some hon. Members opposite


who believe that there is considerable scope for studying the whole question of subsidies in agriculture, irrespective of the Common Market. As a farmer I would welcome such a study in many ways. However, those hon. Members who take that view should not keep using the figure of £1,000 million. They should subtract from that figure the potential loss of profit sustained by farmers who between 1945 and 1951 had to sell their produce at fixed prices which were below world prices.
Before coming to my main theme, I want to refer to unfenced roads and to higher subsidies for fencing roads in hill farming areas. I speak about this subject feelingly, because I have run into a flock of sheep and turned my car upside down when my family was in it, fortunately with no damage to the family, although with great damage to the car. Only the other day, I had a useful black bull run into by a motorist on an unfenced road. Fortunately, the motorist was not badly hurt, although the car was badly damaged, and to all appearances the bull is not too bad, except that he is not doing that job which I keep him for.
The Secretary of State for Scotland must appreciate that motoring is spreading further and further afield and that people are driving on many unfenced roads. The present state of affairs is unfair to the farmer and to the motorist and there must be some system of grant, I suggest in co-operation with the county councils or local councils, properly to fence the enormous number of unfenced roads and so save the needless slaughter of farm animals, especially sheep.

Mr. Manuel: I am intensely interested in this matter, but, while I want to do everything to avoid the slaughter of sheep or other animals, in the Highlands of Scotland especially there is ready access off the roads for parking cars and for picnicking and for camping, especially in Ayrshire and Inverness-shire, which I know well. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that if we have fencing we should not interfere with the facilities which are now enjoyed.

Mr. Mackie: There would be no difficulty about that, for the land in that area is not very valuable and the fences could

be put well back from the road and leave areas for parking cars and so on.
I want to refer especially to the Clause which deals with farm buildings and improvements grants. We have spent or are spending £150 million on this item, £50 million by the Government and £100 million by the farmers. I understand from the Minister that 80 per cent. has probably been spent on buildings alone and there is to be a further grant of £31 million for the next five years, which means that farmers will be spending £62 million, because they have to spend at least two-thirds of the cost and in many cases they spend more. That means that a fairly formidable sum is being spent. I am as anxious as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North to see that the money is spent properly. The figure of 200,000 building schemes is enormous and I wonder whether that money for buildings is properly spent.
Can a farmer get the best advice on what to do and proper plans for his buildings? I doubt that very much indeed. I do not want to bore the House, but I could give a tremendous number of instances. I was in the West Country last week and I saw a set of buildings, beautifully built in every way, but the figure which the farmer received for the floor area for his cows was, I am perfectly certain, all right for an area with plenty of straw and a dry climate, as in the east of the country, but all wrong for the west. I have seen self-feed silos where there was far too small an area per cow, and where the farmer had got advice for making a different kind of silage. I have seen a yard and parlour where the New Zealand or herringbone type of construction had been used, although it was not suitable for the type of cow on that farm.
I could give other instances, but one of the most important ones, if we are to compete with the Danes, is that of a proper piggery. How many of us really give any thought to the proper floor area for pigs? We know that there are slatted floors for sheep and cattle, of which I know some hon. Members disapprove, but, nevertheless, they are corning in, and we do not know enough about them. There is also a question of the storage of potatoes and a whole host of things about which we do not know


enough and into which we should have more research.
I know that there is a certain amount of research going on, but it is not coordinated in any shape or form. We may have some slight co-ordination but it is not sufficient, and the only way, I submit—I am glad to see that the Minister has returned, because he would have a lot to do with it—is to have a central research station for farm buildings. I do not mean that we should get all the work done at a central station. It would be far too expensive and clumsy, and no good, anyway, because the work would have to be done in the areas in question. For instance, if we want to build a dairy in the West Country, the research on the size and shape of the buildings should be done there. The central building research station which I am pleading for would initiate work at other stations. Buildings have a lot to do with nutrition, and nutrition centres could initiate the studies they want made, but it would have to do a certain amount on its own.
I know that the question of cost comes into this. How much would it cost for such a station as I have indicated? Surely, not more than £250,000, I am certain. It could be run at £50,000 a year—£50,000 in 10 years. Is it too much? It is a very small percentage of the total of about £240 million that we are spending on buildings, and I am certain that if the farmers realised how many mistakes are made in putting up buildings, they would agree to this coming off the grant and being used for research. It would be an asset for all time.
I know that this matter comes under the Minister for Science, so I appeal to the Minister of Agriculture to see his colleague in another place and appeal to him to have a research station set up in order to see that this enormous amount of money is spent on schemes that have already been put into operation, on others which will require to be renovated, as well as those to be done in the future, so that they are done in a proper way. I have made this appeal before through the Farm Buildings Association and in various other ways. I make it again tonight because of the position that will arise under this

Bill, because of the large amount to be spent and in the hope of getting some results.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I should like to make two points. First, I wish to back up very heartily the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member from The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) about Clause 19. When we talk about compulsory acquisition of land, some people are apt to think of the whole of a farm going and a farmer's livelihood suffering, but we must not forget that if a major and busy road is cut across a farm, although the proportion of land taken may be a small proportion of the farm, the ability to work the farm properly may be almost completely destroyed. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to bear that in mind in Committee. If we say that the acquiring authority
may pay to him such reasonable allowance
as it thinks fit, this may sound less generous than it is.
Secondly, improvement grants are more than matched by a contribution from the farmer concerned. When we talk about increased efficiency, what we generally imply, but seldom say, is increased output. That increased output is being produced at the cost of increased interest charges, so that if as a result of the increased output, speaking nationally, not only the price received by the farmer but the price guarantee is reduced the net result may be that the farmer is left with a smaller net income. We must always bear in mind that, when we exhort people to increase efficiency, in almost every case we are exhorting them to increase output. We must be prepared to accept that increase in output without having the economic justification cut from under it, principally by imports of dumped foodstuffs.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: The Bill has been described as a Bill of bits and pieces. It is made up of many bits and pieces, but, apparently, there are not enough bits and pieces for some hon. Members. I shall return to that later.
I should like to say how much we regret that on this occasion we do not have the hon. Member for Westmorland


(Mr. Vane) with us. When he was Joint Parliamentary Secretary he was courtesy itself and very helpful indeed. I think that we should acknowledge the assistance which hon. Members on both sides received from him in his official capacity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I said that many hon. Members feel that some things have been left out of the Bill. It is true that it covers a very wide range of subsidies. One hon. Gentleman asked for assistance in subsidising cartridges with which to shoot birds either on or off the wing. I thought that we had reached the limit until the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) said that he wanted some winter keep for bees. Apparently his stock ran out and he had to give them some honey to keep them going. He wants to know whether money will be provided for this purpose. Perhaps he was encouraged by some of the things which appear in the Bill.
I do not want to carry on the personal dispute which arose between my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) and the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), except to say that it would have been courteous if the hon. Member for Harborough had stayed for the rest of the debate. It is unusual for an hon. Member to make a personal attack on another and then to leave. One of the courtesies of this House is that, when an hon. Member receives a personal letter from a constituent of another, the first thing that he does is to go to the hon. Member concerned to point it out and to let the constituent know that it is not the custom of this House for one hon. Member to take personal cases from another hon. Member's constituency. Therefore, I am bound to say, even in his absence, that my hon. Friend will persist in his effort either to have him substantiate what he said or withdraw it, and I am certain that that is a reasonable proposition which commends itself to hon. Members on both sides.
Whenever we discuss agriculture and subsidies the temperature rises. It inevitably rises because there are a number of people in the community who think that the farmers are getting away with it. Large sums of money are mentioned as though they are paid right into the pockets of the farmers

and the money just sticks there and nothing more happens. After a fairly long experience in the House, I am bound to say that perhaps those of us who have argued in favour of subsidies, and certainly this applies to many hon. Gentlemen opposite, have not taken the same fair balance about subsidies as applied to other things for which the Government are responsible.
We should not want to go back to the bad old days of agriculture. I know that in the area farmed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) there was at one time considerable poverty, and on the borders of Scotland, where I lived for a few years, I saw the poverty which existed in the farming community.
Whenever we think of the Labour Government, we think of the year 1947, because it was then that the foundation was laid for a prosperous agricultural industry, not only for the farmer but for the farm worker. Indeed, we all recollect the suggestion which was made that we were so generous that for the first time for many years farmers were able to pay their annual subscriptions to the Tory Party. I recall that story because it was so common. Indeed, I recall another story, that within two years the president of the National Farmers' Union fell over his wallet and broke his leg as a result of this prosperity. But let us in all seriousness remember that time, and remember that this foundation was laid by the Labour Government.
There is another lesson to be drawn from what was done at that time. Let us not forget that the man responsible for this tremendous job was Lord Williams, the man whom we knew as Tom Williams. Let us remember also that on the Scottish side the people responsible for this policy were my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), ably assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). For many years they rendered signal service to the agricultural community of Scotland.

Mr. Stodart: Mr. Stodart indicated assent.

Mr. Hoy: I am glad that I have the approval of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West.
I wonder whether the House realises that Lord Williams and my hon. Friend


the Member for Hamilton were both miners. One can but wish that some of the generosity that was shown by them to the agricultural industry was passed back to those in the industry in which they worked.
What do agricultural subsidies do? What is their purpose? Let us consider, first, the amount that has been spent. Considerable sums have been mentioned. Some of my hon. Friends mentioned a figure of about £4,000 million since 1947. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) said that we ought to ignore the figures at least up to 1951. Therefore, for the purpose of my argument, I will take the figures from 1953–54 to the present time, including the estimated amount of the subsidies this year. They range from £246 million in 1953–54 to £339 million last year. If my information is correct, that sum is likely to be exceeded this year. In any case, even the figure of £339 million shows that since 1953–54 we have paid out about £2,690 million in subsidies. That is a considerable sum of money.
The money is being paid out to restore our agricultural industry and also to provide a decent standard of living for the agricultural worker, as well as the farmer. At the same time, by the payment of the subsidies the Government have laid a responsibility on the industry to keep down prices paid by the consumer. The agricultural industry has to accept this social responsibility, and receives compensation for it, and we argue that the same responsibility was placed on the coal mining industry, in that it was compelled to supply coal to industry at a restricted price. We feel that the Government ought to have accepted responsibility for the extra payments, in the same way as they accept responsibility in agriculture. When we are considering this subject we must try to be fair to those in other industries who have to face the same problem.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West said, some changes may have to be made in agricultural subsidies as a whole. In his little commercial introduction the hon. Member quoted from a pamphlet which he wrote, along with certain of his hon. and right hon. Friends who now decorate the Government Front Bench. I believe that four of them are Ministers. One of their suggestions

was that considerable savings might be effected in ploughing-up grants. I have heard the hon. Member say that we have paid them out much too often.
That is the basis from which we start. In the course of today's discussion the view has been expressed that we must make certain that the money is spent economically and wisely. I was intrigued by the suggestion made about improvement grants. This question was referred to by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins). They felt that one mistake was being made in the payment of these grants, namely, that we were fixing certain sums for everything that was being done. In other words, they suggested that the Minister might take power to increase the grants made for certain improvements that had taken place, because in certain farms they would have a greater value, and would be of greater assistance. Like any other improvement grant, unless these farm improvement grants are wisely used, so that they build up and fortify the capital resources, they are failing to do their job.
I was rather surprised at some hon. Members opposite who appeared to be a little touchy about the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney). They asked who would benefit from these improvement grants if a sale took place. Some hon. Members on both sides of the House may not agree with all that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North said, but I thought that he caused a fresh breeze to blow through the debate, and I very much enjoyed it. It is an argument which we have had to face before, and if anyone should face it, it is the Secretary of State for Scotland. My hon. Friends said, "If these improvement grants are to be made and paid for by the Government, or if a considerable portion of them is to be paid, is it right that the farmer should sell out to whoever he likes the next day?" By so doing the farmer would be taking an accrued benefit provided for by public money.
This question is not new. Under the housing legislation householders who receive grants in order to modernise and


improve their property are not allowed to sell the property for a period, which I think is as long as twenty years, unless they return to the Government the proportion of the money given to them to be spent on repairs. If that can be done in the case of private householders, my hon. Friends were justified in asking the Minister why something similar should not happen in respect of the millions being provided for farm improvements, because, whatever else may happen, no one should have the right to make a profit out of money paid by the Government.
Clause 4 is the short Clause which encouraged the hon. Member for The Wrekin to make a claim in respect of some winter feed scheme for bees. The Clause provides that contributions paid in respect of fertilisers should extend to fertilisers used by mushroom growers. This is on a par with the action of the late Earl Baldwin who removed the duty on broccoli. It is amazing how the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland can find a way to grant subsidies to sections of the agricultural industry. During the discussions on the fishing industry legislation we asked for a similar subsidy for the shellfish from Cornwall and elsewhere. The Minister could not find the money for that, but this issue is connected with agriculture and so there is money available.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the money spent on subsidies. I think that each bag of fertiliser carries a subsidy of up to 50 per cent., and one can weld understand that a lot of money is involved. If a similar subsidy were granted in respect of coal, what a reduction there would be in the price of a bag of coal as delivered to the consumer. It is important that the Minister should ensure that this money is wisely spent. I had to raise this issue in a previous debate on agriculture. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) and I spend many hours in this House inquiring about how Government money is spent and a lot of that time is taken up in considering the expenditure on the agricultural industry.
This legislation follows a recommendation from the Public Accounts Committee. As the Minister said, the

Committee had a lot of trouble in investigating a considerable amount of fraud which was going on over this subsidy—[HON. MEMBERS: Fraud?"]—Yes, fraud. Many people were exploiting it and by doing so they were costing the taxpayers thousands of pounds. The Government promised to take action to prevent this happening.
We have to remember that not only was deliberate fraud being committed but those supplying fertilisers had to appear before the Monopolies Commission because of gross over-charging for fertilisers which was taking place. This was confined to two substantial firms. We want to be assured that the Minister, while calling for these precautions, will not again allow the supply to return to a monopoly. We have to be protected against people such as Messrs. Fisons and I.C.I., whose charges were exorbitant.
It may well be that a co-operative farming association may be the answer to the problem. I have seen that in certain parts of the country. One cannot help but be impressed by the system in the young State of Israel where farming is done in this way with great economy and good returns to all engaged in agriculture in that country. I say that to the Minister because he has to protect, not only the taxpayer and the Government, but himself in view of a further case this year in connection with lime subsidies.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns will remember, because he raised it in the Committee, that some farmers took lime in the form of gravel with which they laid garden paths. There was a very good argument in relation to what the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said about road grants. If we gave them road grants they might not be using lime grants for this purpose. In another case which has now finished a man has been sentenced for taking his lime grant in the form of cigars and whisky. When one reads the Treasury report to the Public Accounts Committee it is seen how important it is that Ministers responsible should exercise all the care possible. The Report with which we were presented said:
The irregularities included claims for fictitious deliveries, inflated weights and ineligible


materials, claims for lime not spread on agricultural land declarations of suppliers' cash charges considerably in excess of those actually made against the farmers, concealment of discounts, and false claims for spreading charges and haulage.
This is a form of private enterprise which does not commend itself to those on this side of the House nor, I am sure, to hon. Members opposite. This money which is being spent is collected from the taxpayer.
I turn to another matter because this is a Bill of bits and pieces and it would be impossible to deal with everything it contains. I am highly interested, as I am sure many hon. Members are, in the scheme for dealing with fowl pest. This is another item which costs the taxpayers many millions of pounds.
I often wonder when this House is passing Estimates if it really understands what it is letting the taxpayer in for. In compensation in connection with fowl pest the following sums have been spent: 1956–57, £1,474,000; 1959–60, a record total of £4,655,000; 1960–61, £3,500,000. This is a tremendous lot of money, and I think that the House is entitled to have an assurance from the Minister about it. Does he believe that this vaccine will do the job? Only last year when we were discussing this in the Public Accounts Committee, the reply was that so far, up to last year, the Department itself had set its face against immunisation, that in fact the vaccine would not be all that cheap, and that it did not think that it would be satisfactory. In the face of that, one year later we have the proposal from the Government to institute this vaccine allowance, and we are entitled to know, before we agree to spend this sum of money on it, whether it will be efficient for doing the job.
I turn quite hurriedly to the provisions for grassland because this is important to Scotland. In addition to providing grants for fertilisers and so on, we should like to know whether the Government have any further ideas in mind. We have had two Reports from Scotland, the Balfour Report and the Duncan Report, one dealing with the size and development of the Highlands and Uplands and the other, the Duncan Report, dealing with drainage. It seems to us a considerable waste to go on spending money on fertilisers in Scotland if the basic drain-

age is bad. Surely if the Government are to do this they ought to be spending money recreating the soil so that those who will occupy it can look ahead for a number of years. After all, agriculture does not live exactly from year to year. Those who live off the land or work on the land have to plan some years ahead. I ask the Government to look at this once more to see if this money could not be spent in a better way.
Then there is the problem of winter keep which is terribly important to us. If we are to keep up supply, whether sheep or cows, farmers have to be assured that there is a winter keep scheme that will allow them to maintain the cattle. I am sorry that I cannot say more on that, but I promised to raise one other point in which we are interested. That is the abolition of the Welsh Land Commission. We know that this estate is to disappear from Wales. Perhaps I should not attempt to pronounce the name, but we know which one it is in Wales. This estate of some 37,000 acres was taken by the Exchequer in lieu of death duty. I thought that it was a very acceptable form of paying death duty. The Minister has decided to get rid of it.
There is one thing on which the Minister is clear. He has always said that he did not feel that it was a duty of his Department to own land. But here surely was a very sensible way of meeting the needs of the community. There are many people who when they depart do not leave sufficient liquid cash to meet death duties, and by this very happy arrangement between the Government and those heirs and successors, the Government can take land in payment, and this is exactly what was done in this case. It was of benefit to those who succeeded to the estate and it provided ample compensation for the Government.
Before disposing of this land, surely the Government should have gone into the question a little further. If there is one complaint we have, it is that some people find it impossible in this country to get land. There was a complaint yesterday by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) that many young people in this country could not find the capital with which to start farming. Surely if we have land which is Government property, then the


Government ought to be able to let it to young energetic people so that they may earn their livelihood.
Secondly, in this country we require a considerable amount more land for afforestation. Forestry has been a great boon to us, and I am certain that there is no Scottish hon. Member, especially from the Highlands, who would not pay tribute to the remarkable job done by the Forestry Commission. If any two things go together to harmonise production it is forestry and agriculture. We know that they have their little differences as to who should own which part of the land, but I am certain that the wise use of land, built about with belts of trees, can prove of immense value to agriculture.
I have tried to cover the ground as hurriedly as possible and to emphasise many points which have been made during the debate and which needed emphasis. In Committee the Minister can expect to receive some Amendments, which we hope will come from both sides of the Committee. They will be an endeavour to improve agriculture in this country, because whether we join or stay out of the Common Market, it is essential for a country which has to import 50 per cent. of its food supply that it has an efficient agricultural industry. In that way we shall tackle the problem, and I hope that we shall have the Minister's co-operation in doing so.

9.31 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): As a general summing up of today's debate I can fairly say that the Bill has been generally welcomed as a useful Measure. Its aims are recognised to be modest, but the financial reinforcement for agriculture which it brings—£78 million over five years—is by no means insubstantial.
Inevitably, hon. Members have suggested improvements, and there have been representations that some of the Clauses should go further than they do. I shall try to answer many of these points, but, like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), I find that the field is very wide indeed. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him into the coal and fish section of his speech. I should also like to spend a little time underlining some of the con-

tents of the Bill which are of particular interest to Scotland.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart). in a fairly long and at times a rather circuitous speech, if I may say so, kept asking whether the Bill indicated a change in Government policy, and, if it did, what the new policy was. As he talked he gradually answered the question for himself, because he came, I think quite rightly, to the conclusion that Government policy over the last period has been to change from other forms of deficiency grant to production grants —and then he welcomed this as the right sort of development.

Mr. Peart: I came to the conclusion that as in many other fields the Govern-merit had no policy.

Mr. Noble: The hon. Member may have come to that conclusion but he did not put it as bluntly as that. He asked a great many questions.
The main features of the Bill concern the Farm Improvements Scheme, which has been going on for five years, and the Hill Farming Act, which has been going on steadily since the war. As the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said, the Bill is essentially one for Committee discussion and not for new policy decisions. Various references have been made to the Common Market. As you detected, Mr. Speaker, the Bill has no direct connection with the, Brussels negotiations, but anxiety has been expressed during the debate lest our whole system of grants and subsidies should he at risk if we join the Common Market because we must follow exactly what is done by the other members of the Community.
I must point out that there is a special section of the Treaty of Rome, Articles 92 to 94, which sets out the conditions under which member States out of their own resources may grant-aid their own industries. It is true that there are rules to ensure that such assistance is compatible with the Common Market but there is nothing in the Community's rules to the effect that a member State may grant a particular aid only if all other members do likewise. In fact, the hon. Member for Workington, who asked about the effects of our possible entry into the European Economic Community on these grants, suggested,


as he went along, the answer to his own question. France, Germany and Italy are all spending very large sums of State money on these general purposes.
The hon. Member for Workington also inquired about the horticultural marketing aspects of the Bill. I agree with him that this is an important subject. The market development scheme in Clause 9 applies equally to horticulture and agriculture and provides £1½ million over three years. It is, in our view, for the industry itself to take advantage of the grants available under the market development scheme. The hon. Member seemed to want the Government to take over a little more responsibility for these, but my right hon. Friend and I have noted with pleasure the initiative of growers, wholesalers and retailers in announcing their intention to establish a joint consultative council, which may go some way to replace the Horticultural Marketing Council. We were also very pleased and interested to learn that the N.F.U. intends to examine the possibility of establishing a development council for the horticultural industry, because we feel that in close co-operation between the Government, the growers and the N.F.U. lies the most likely chance of success.

Mr. Hoy: We know that the Horticultural Marketing Council had no executive powers. That is why it failed completely. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that there is to be a better council that will have power, not merely the power of recommendation?

Mr. Noble: I imagine that this point will be borne in mind in the discussions going on. The money is now available to help them to get off the ground with the new schemes.

Mr. Peart: I must press this. I know that the Secretary of State is in a special position, but what is the Government's policy? Why is the Minister silent? Is there to be some authority with executive powers, which is what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) and I have pressed for? Can we have an answer?

Mr. Noble: All that is in the Bill—after all, that is what we are debating tonight—is the marketing scheme which

has been announced to the House and for which £1½ million is available.
My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) asked in relation to the farm improvements scheme whether the farms which were the biggest and best were getting the largest slice of the cake. It is possibly of interest to them that there have been 20,000 schemes approved for farms between 50 and 100 acres. That represents about 30 per cent. by number, which my hon. Friend will agree is a very reasonable figure. I do not believe from what I am told that there is a gap, as my hon. Friend feared there might be, between the people who can benefit under this scheme and those who can benefit under the Small Farmer Scheme. Many small farmers get one or other, and quite a lot get both.
On the question that my hon. Friend raised about a larger percentage of grant for smaller farms, I cannot do better that quote what Lord Amory said when moving the Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill in 1957. He said:
I may be asked why we do not restrict the improvement grants to those with limited financial means. The answer, in brief, is that the prime object of these grants is to promote the really economic improvements, and encourage efficiency, not primarily in the interests of any particular section, but in those of the nation as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1957; Vol. 567, c. 813.]
The right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) raised a number of points. As the hon. Member for Leith said, the right hon. Gentleman has a special connection with these things, having been closely concerned with the 1947 legislation. The right hon. Gentleman asked, first—the hon. Member for Leith followed him in this—whether there was a danger of the Government creating a monopoly in fertilisers, which would put up the price. I can assure the House that there is nothing in the Bill which moves at all in that direction. In fact, regarding a monopoly, any merchant can be registered who is prepared to give a service and who is prepared to open his books for Government inspection. I hope that that will avoid any of the abuses to which the hon. Member referred.
The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire quoted from the report of the Balfour Committee but I think that a


good deal has changed in the West Highlands and the north of Scotland since that was published. I am glad that he found himself able to welcome the idea that more winter keep should be grown at home because I am certain that this is possible, and also that there should be more forestry for shelter. I was delighted to hear that he was pleased, too, that more grassland renovation was coming into operation, because these are all important things in the part of the country which he and I know so well.
That right hon. Member, along with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith also raised the problem of poultry vaccine. I should like to combine this with the second question the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire raised about swine fever. There is a vaccine for swine fever, but it is an expensive one, and we believe that we have a very good chance of completely eradicating swine fever in the same way as we are trying to eradicate foot and mouth disease. Therefore, the vaccine, if used for that purpose, might not be the right answer.
But when it comes to the poultry vaccine we should remember that the chances of eradicating fowl pest are so slight as not to be reasonably possible. It is not, perhaps, possible to say that evidence of the efficiency of the new vaccine is yet established, but we have been doing a considerable number of experiments, both private tests and those conducted by our own veterinary officers, and the results are encouraging.

Mr. Woodburn: Has the Minister any idea of the cost? There are millions of fowls in the country and at a bob a time, for instance, the cost would be enormous.

Mr. Hoy: Before the Minister replies, we must have something better than the remarks he has so far made. The right hon. Gentleman is asking the House for at least £1 million to do this job. Surely we should be given an assurance in more precise terms than we have so far been given. I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman means by "a considerable improvement". What improvement has taken place between last year and this which has convinced the Ministry that it should undertake this task? If we

are to be asked to pass a sum as large as £1 million we must be given a greater assurance than we have so far received.

Mr. Noble: The hon. Member for Leith told the House earlier that the compensation policy had been very expensive.

Mr. Hoy: Yes.

Mr. Noble: That is quite true, and vaccination is going to cost about £1 million for two years. Considering what the Plant Committee said on this, it is a better policy and I think that we should try it out.
The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire then raised a point about the balancing of M.A.P. with the winter keep scheme. I think that this scheme is, in the expectation of most farmers, thought to be exactly that. The total cost of winter keep grants for the United Kingdom for the first full year is published in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill at about £2·7 million. Scotland is expected to take about a half of that; about £1·4 million. The response to the grassland renovation schemes is a more difficult figure to assess, but the Scottish total might probably be about £60,000.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) also referred to this problem of marginal grants and the winter keep scheme. He asked me one or two specific points. He asked whether we were adopting a differential rate for farms in Scotland. I am pleased to tell him that we are doing so, and a great deal of the work on the classification of farms has already been done. He also asked whether there were upland farmers who would perhaps lose M.A.P. and fail to get ploughing grants. I think that this will not arise, because if they fail to get the winter keep scheme, they will be able to get the ploughing grant.
There is only one point worth mentioning specifically, and that is that there will he some dairy farmers in the high country who will not qualify for winter keep. This may seem difficult, but anybody who has studied the economics of this sort of farm has agreed some time ago that these farms are not suitable for dairy production. It is all very high-cost production. Certainly correspondence which I have had from time to time in the past from the Milk Marketing Boards confirms this.

Mr. Stodart: If these dairy farmers turn over to beef production, will they then qualify for the livestock rearing scheme?

Mr. Noble: Yes, Sir, that will be so, and this might well be a method of encouraging them to do so.
The hon. Member for Aberavon has sent me a note explaining why he cannot be in his place. It is because he and his wife are taking part in the Productivity Year at this moment. I think that everybody in the House wishes them well. The hon. Member asked me whether the extra amount under the Hill Farming Act was more than a paper figure. It is difficult to give a perfectly straight and honest answer, because it is difficult to tell how much of the money not yet used by farmers will be used. But if we did not take this extra £3 million at the moment it might well be that we should have to refuse people who ask for schemes in the next 12 months.
The hon. Member also asked me whether we should not continue the scheme for a longer time in case there was a reservoir of farmers who might still want to apply. I think that it is true to say that this is unlikely. We have already covered 13,800 holdings in the United Kingdom. The Balfour Committee, when it originally suggested the scheme, said that if we had 50 per cent. of farms in the country covered by it the scheme would be a success, and we are well over that figure.
There are many categories of people who have not yet been able to use the scheme. One of the difficulties in Scotland is that the Hill Farming Act and the hill fanning schemes are very comprehensive and those people who could not produce a complete scheme are now successfully producing part schemes under the other possible methods, like the Farm Improvements Scheme. I therefore do not believe that there is this big reservoir of people after all these years have passed. The hon. Member for Aberavon also asked about the Welsh Agricultural Organisation Society and why the grant to it was falling. The reason is that the grant is related to its membership income. In England the grant is only 20 per cent. In Wales it is 80 per cent. Therefore, although it is falling, those concerned are doing extremely well out of it. He asked me

to say a word about land which was being disposed of and whether the tenants on that land would have security of tenure. I am told that neither the Land Commission nor the Forestry Commission have ever asked or forced a tenant to leave, and this will continue. The hon. Gentleman also asked me whether the Glanllyn sale is complete. It is not complete, but the Government are fully committed to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) spoke about machinery syndicates. I think the Bill meets his point—that is, the point on which he disagreed with the Government and the White Paper—and I hope that he will now be able to support us without any reservations in that matter.
The problem of roads in rural areas is, in my belief, unending. One never seems to get to the end of possible improvements in farm roads, but we have done 2,220 miles under this scheme. The effective scope, in our view, is not sufficient to justify asking the House for more money at this stage.
The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) asked why the payment of the allowances in Clause 19, following compulsory acquisitions, should not be mandatory rather than permissive. In this Bill we are extending to agricultural occupiers the provisions already contained in the Land Compensation Act, 1961, and the corresponding Scottish and Northern Ireland legislation which similarly makes permissive the payment of allowances to those displaced from business premises.
In putting agricultural occupiers on the same footing as those in other walks of life we are giving effect to the objects of the Bill which was presented by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin and which was withdrawn on this understanding, namely that we put them on all fours with other business occupiers. To go further than this would mean departing in this one instance from the principle of the general law.
The hon. Member for Devon, North also asked why the Government had not given time for a debate on the Price Review—"as usual" were the words he used. The information that I have is that in the last ten years the Price


Review has been debated twice only, and on both of those occasions on Supply Days, which are, as he knows, in the choice of the Opposition.

Mr. Thorpe: Perhaps for he record I should point out that the Motion which was tabled, and which certain hon. Members opposite supported, criticised both the Opposition and the Government for failing to provide time, so that the blame is apportioned. I should not like to direct it solely to the Government.

Mr. Noble: I am prepared to accept that the hon. Gentleman distributes his disfavours equally. As I was not in the House I cannot be certain, but I was told that he directed his disfavour at the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Peart: Also for the record, may I point out that when we had a major debate on the Small Farmers Scheme the Liberals were not present.

Mr. Thorpe: I spoke in that debate.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Withdraw.

Mr. Noble: If I may cover one or two more points very quickly, my hon. Friend the Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Farr) asked why only £250,000 had been allocated for machinery syndicates. This is not a limit in any sense. It is merely an estimate of what we think is likely to be spent.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), in talking about the winter keep grants, seemed to me to be a little puzzled by the £7 ploughing grant and the £2 for the winter keep. I think perhaps he did not realise that the £2 winter keep is an annual payment and the £7 ploughing grant is payable only at the appropriate intervals. I have the greatest sympathy with him in his worry about the losses on upland roads—and the greatest sympathy with the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) whose bull is not as good as it was—but there is the possibility of getting either a 50 per cent. or a 33⅓ per cent. grant for this purpose, and where it is applicable farmers can have it.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) made a number of most interesting points which, as

the hon. Member for Leith said, were stimulating and refreshing. The hon. Member feels, as many hon. Members opposite do, that the £4,000 million, the figure quoted on several occasions, which has been pushed into agriculture could more usefully, perhaps, gone to other places. I think that most people on this side of the House would disagree with that. We feel—I am sure that a great many hon. Members opposite feel the same—that agriculture has made a tremendous contribution to the life of the country and to the consumers in it.

Mr. E. G. Willis: So it should.

Mr. Noble: So it should, perhaps, and so it has.
Hon. Members may well agree that the Bill lives up to its name. It does, however, serve to emphasise the great variety of work which comes the way of the Agriculture Departments. It serves also to illustrate the readiness of the Government to adapt and improve the framework of agricultural legislation as one of the factors governing the contribution which the industry can make to the national economy. Inevitably, from time to time, we accumulate a mixed bag of subjects calling for legislation. Sometimes it may be necessary to close gaps in earlier legislation or bring it into line with the times. At times there may be quite major proposals devised to reinforce schemes or to initiate new ones.
Such changes help our agriculture to achieve and maintain the pitch of efficiency which is essential in an increasingly competitive world. The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire said that no efficient farmer need fear the Common Market. The industry, which has a good record of rising productivity, has over the years shown its readiness and ability to respond to the challenge of changing circumstances and to make the fullest use of the advances of science and developments in technique.
It is only right that the Government too should be ready to adapt and innovate. The present Bill is an indication of that readiness. Although it is a small Bill, it makes, in the Government's view, a necessary and important contribution to the structure of statutory agricultural


provisions. I trust, accordingly, that our proposals will commend themselves to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for One hour after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered under Standing Order Nc. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session relating to agriculture, it is expedient to authorize—
A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(1) grants towards the cost of constructing, enlarging or adapting buildings for occupation and use by farmers' machinery syndicates and of providing such buildings with such services, means of access and other works as are reasonably required, being grants of an amount not exceeding one-third of that cost (or of a specified amount treated as that cost);
(2) grants to bodies of persons engaged in organising, promoting or developing co-operation in agriculture or horticulture (including any activities carried on in connection therewith) or co-operation in the marketing of agricultural or horticultural produce;
(3) grants towards the cost of carrying out approved proposals for promoting the efficient marketing of agricultural or horticultural produce, for carrying out research connected therewith, for making the result of such research available to producers of such produce, or for the formation of bodies carrying on agricultural or horticultural producers' marketing businesses, and contributions to the expenses incurred in connection with the examination of proposals by persons whose support is required as a condition of approval;

(4) grants in respect of land used for growing crops for the winter feeding of livestock;
(5) grants in respect of land under grass or similar crops which is renovated by the carrying out of operations thereon;
(6) compensation for things seized for the purpose of preventing the spread of certain diseases of animals and poultry or of things which could be so seized but are destroyed, buried or disposed of without being seized;
(7) any expenses incurred in making arrangements for making vaccine against fowl pest available at prices designed to encourage its use;
(8) any sums necessary to enable any Minister of the Crown to make payments to persons who are displaced from land used by them for the purposes of agriculture, being land which is so used by way of a trade or business; and
(9) any expenses of administration incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the said Act of this Session.
B. Any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under any enactment attributable to any provision of the said Act of this Session—

(1) increasing to thirty million pounds the maximum amount that may be paid in the aggregate by way of grants under section 1 of the Hill Farming Act 1946;
(2) adding four years to the periods by reference to which or days in which the making of subsidy payments is authorised by section 13 of the said Act of 1946;
(3) increasing to ninety million pounds the maximum amount that may be paid in the aggregate by way of grants under Part II of the Agriculture Act 1957; and
(4) extending contributions under the Agriculture (Fertilisers) Act 1952 to fertilisers used by growers of mushrooms, and to fertilisers applied to the crop instead of to the soil.
C. Any increase attributable to the said Act of this Session in the sums which may be or are to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund or raised by borrowing under the Sugar Act 1956.
D. Any increase attributable to the said Act of this Session in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.
E. Any increase attributable to the said Act of this Session in the sums payable into the Exchequer under any other enactment —[Mr. Soames.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session relating to agriculture it is expedient to authorise any increase—

(a) in the rate of any surcharge payable to the Sugar Board by virtue of section 7 of the Sugar Act 1956; or
(b) in the amount of any distribution repayment so payable by virtue of section 15 of the said Act of 1956;
which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of this Session requiring the Sugar Board to purchase sugar to be used as an ingredient of goods to be exported from the Republic of Ireland.—[Mr. Soames.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow: Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — FARM IMPROVEMENTS GRANTS

Farm Improvements Grants (Aggregate Amount) Order 1962 [copy laid before the House 31st October], approved.—[Mr. Soames.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION)

10.2 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Superannuation (Benefits) (New Towns Staffs) Regulations, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.
The object of these Regulations is to bring up to date the existing Regulations, which were made in 1958, in the light of the establisihment since then of the Commission for the New Towns and the transfer to it of the assets of the Development Corporations of Crawley and Hemel Hempstead, and later of other new towns. In turn, the object of the 1958 Regulations was to provide for the exceptional circumstances of service with the new town Development Corporations. Most of the staff of these Development Corporations come within the ordinary

local government superannuation scheme but, as the House will know, a feature of that scheme is that in normal circumstances an officer who leaves his employment, for reasons other than ill-health, before reaching pensionable age and who does not within twelve months find other employment in which his superannuation rights can be preserved is entitled only to repayment of his own contributions, the contributions of his employers being retained in the fund.
The 1958 Regulations were designed to give special benefits to those members of the Development Corporation staffs rendered redundant as a result either of the dissolution of the Corporation, the transfer of some or all of its undertakings to a local authority or statutory undertaker, or the substantial curtailment of the activities of the corporation as a result of a Ministerial decision. The House will find the relevant provision in Regulation 3 (2).
I think that it is clear that unless some special provision were made, officials of these Corporations might well suffer severe financial hardship through no fault of their own as a result of this redundancy. The special benefits in the 1958 Regulations cover officers who have served at least five years with a Development Corporation. If such an officer is within ten years of pensionable age and is unable within twelve months to find other employment in which his superannuation rights can be preserved, under the Regulations he can either have his accrued pension frozen until he reached pensionable age, or he can receive a reduced pension immediately. The scale of the reduction is set out in the table in Part 1 of the Schedule to the 1958 Regulations. An officer with more than ten years to serve before reaching pensionable age is entitled only to the frozen pension.
The object of these Regulations is to bring the former Regulations into effect, notwithstanding the transfer of the assets of the Development Corporations to the New Towns Commission, which is not specifically mentioned in the Regulations. As far as the present situation is concerned, the New Towns Commission has already taken over the assets of the Crawley and Hemel Hempstead new towns, and I am informed that there are at most about six people


who may be affected by these Regulations.
The undertaking given was that none would be made redundant before the end of this year. But, of course, if they were made redundant before that and these Regulations are not passed, they would not be entitled to these benefits. This is because under the old Regulations these benefits do not apply if notice is given by the Commission. Indeed, they do not apply if the person concerned is serving the Commission at the time he leaves his employment, notwithstanding that his notice was given by a Corporation.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: We on this side of the House welcome these Regulations, although we regret the sequence of events which has made them necessary. They have become necessary because of the decision of the Government to create a New Towns Commission, to which the assets and powers of the various Development Corporations of the new towns will be successively transferred. Once the Government had made that decision, both common sense and justice required that Regulations of this kind should be introduced.
The 1958 Regulations gave rights, which the hon. Gentleman has just described, to employees of the New Towns Development Corporations who became redundant. Apparently, it was not foreseen or intended when the 1958 Regulations were made that any such thing as a New Towns Commission should he created, because, if it had been foreseen or intended, the Regulations would, presumably, have made provision for that contingency, and it would not have been necessary to introduce these.
The odd thing is that we were debating and approving the 1958 Regulations on 22nd July, 1958, yet it was in the autumn of the same year that the Government introduced the Bill to, create the New Towns Commission, which, apparently, they had not foreseen in July, when the previous Regulations were made. It appears, therefore, that this decision to create a New Towns Commission—a decision at variance with all previous policy of both parties with regard to new towns—was a sudden and

unexpected one made somewhere in the late summer or early autumn of 1958. This confirms the view which we on this side of the House have held that it was a hasty and ill-considered decision.
I say that we regret the fact that these Regulations have become necessary. Now that they have become necessary, it is entirely proper that they should be made to safeguard the rights of the persons concerned. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that only six people were affected by these Regulations. That, I take it, is at present, but if the Government persist in their policy for the New Towns Commission successively to take over new town corporations, it might well affect a larger number of people, though it will never I imagine, he very large.
I see that, when we debated the 1958 Regulations—a debate in which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. I. Fraser) and tit' right hon. Gentleman who is now the Postmaster-General took part—it was mentioned that the rights secured by the Regulations had been agreed with the appropriate associations of local government employees. I presume that the same is true of this arrangement. That would I think inevitably follow.
These Regulations properly confer certain rights on people in the new towns service who may become redundant. I hope that the Government will pursue such a policy that redundancy in the new towns service will be very rare. If the Government had displayed greater enthusiasm for new towns over the past years, we should hardly be thinking of redundancy in the new towns service. As the services of officials were less required in those towns which were becoming established, they should have been opening up for them employment in fresh new towns for which there is an acute need if we are to solve the housing problem. If the Government had realised that earlier, there is little doubt that any employee for whose services there was no longer need in a new town reaching its full growth would readily have been able to obtain employment in further new towns that the Government should have been creating.
These Regulations, necessary as they are, serve as a signal to remind us of how much behind the times the Government have been in their new towns policy. I hope that they will take warning from that and will hurry up a little. They have, after long labour and effort, designated--and no more than that—two or, is it, three new towns. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister know very well that if their housing policy means anything there is need for a great deal more than that.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: On behalf of 50 per cent. of those involved, I welcome these proposals and thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for introducing them. I am extremely glad that the numbers concerned are very low because of the Government's policy in the introduction of new towns, which I very much support.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PROCEDURE

10.13 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move,
That the matter of the rule relating to reference in this House to matters considered as sub judice, being a matter relating to the procedure in the public business of the House, be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure.
I will speak briefly and will confine myself to factual comment, because, if I read Erskine May aright, the merits of the case can scarcely be discussed in this Motion.
First, I should like to clear up a matter raised by 'the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). He was concerned that perhaps this reference might affect the admissibility of Parliamentary Questions or other Motions for debate in the House. I should make it clear that I am advised that the Motion will not in any way affect the admissibility of Questions or the discussion of matters relating to the present Tribunal. The admissibility of these matters is and remains governed by the various Rulings already made by you, Mr. Speaker, and by your predecessors. As I understand it, these would

not be affected by the passing of the Motion.
The other matter with which I want to deal was raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who, I am sorry to see, is not here. I told him that if we did not reach this matter at a reasonable hour I would defer it until tomorrow. I think his view is that it is right in some ways to discuss these matters before we send them to the Committee on Procedure. In my view, it is perhaps best that we should send them fairly formally to the Committee on Procedure, partly because hon. Members can—and the hon. Gentleman in one case which the Select Committee has already considered did—give evidence if they wish before the Committee—and the hon. Gentleman's views would no doubt be welcome again—and partly because, as I have said, it is not easy, as I understand it, to discuss these matters in detail under the Ruling in Erskine May.
The only other point which I make in passing is that this matter is not really related, except indirectly, to the matters which have occupied the attention of the House in recent days and weeks. In fact, it was about a year ago that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker, arising out of a difficulty or question that had arisen in another place. You will remember that he asked for a clarification of the sub judice rule, and in particular suggested that it might be brought into line with the requirements of modern debate. There were then some consultations and a certain amount of progress was made, but at 'Obis point the Select Committee on Procedure was set up and it was thought, and I think the House will agree, that this was the most appropriate forum for discussing the sub judice rule.
Then, to complete the story, a few days ago you, Mr. Speaker, ruled on a complaint made on Privilege, and at that time the right hon. Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Shinwell) raised the point that had been mentioned in the Press and there were some doubts as to whether the sub judice rule applied in the case of a Tribunal, but your more recent Ruling is Mat when the House has resolved


to set up a Tribunal under the 1921 Act, and such a Tribunal has been set up, it is not in accordance with the practice of the House to allow Questions to Ministers upon the matter of the inquiry.
I would add, if I may, that if the House agrees to this Motion—I am sure that this is the right course—then the Select Committee would wish to proceed with all due expedition, and I would see that it was furnished with a detailed study of all the Rulings by yourself and your predecessor so that we may be fully informed on any matter that we wish to discuss, and on which it might be right for us to tender advice in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to temporary advances to, and temporary borrowings by, the National Coal Board (in this Resolution referred to as "the Board"), it is expedient to authorise—

(a) such increases in the sums which by or under any enactment are to be or may be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing or paid into the Exchequer as may result from provisions of the said Act of the present Session whereby the Minister of Power (in this Resolution referred to as "the Minister") may advance temporarily to the Board such sums as they may require to borrow temporarily from him for financing any temporary deficit of the Board on revenue account, and
(b) the charging on and issue out of the Consolidated Fund or payment into the Exchequer of such sums as may be required to be so charged, issued or paid in consequence of provisions of the said Act of the present Session whereby the Treasury may guarantee the repayment of, and the payment of any interest on sums borrowed temporarily by the Board, otherwise than

from the Minister, for financing any such deficit or otherwise for meeting their obligations and discharging their functions,
subject to the limitation that the aggregate amount outstanding in respect of the principal of sums borrowed, as mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Resolution, shall not at any time exceed twenty million pounds.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATION & c., BILLS

So much of the Lords Message [20th November] as relates to the appointment of a Committee on Consolidation Bills, Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills prepared pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949, to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. F. Pearson.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Select Committee of Six Members appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider all Consolidation Bills, Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills prepared pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949 in the present Session:

Any Memoranda laid pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949 and any representations made with respect thereto to be referred to the Committee:

Mr. Ronald Bell, Mr. Doughty, Sir Barnett Janner, Sir Hugh Linstead, Mr. Oliver, and Mr. Oram:

Power to send for persons, papers and records; and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House:

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. F. Pearson.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such of the said orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

Orders of the Day — KILWINNING INDUSTRIAL ESTATE (ADVANCE FACTORY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. F. Pearson.]

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel: This Adjournment debate is of considerable importance to many people in my constituency, and I very much regret that the President of the Board of Trade, or at least: the Minister of State, is not in his place.
The matter which I am raising concerns the integrity of the President of the Board of Trade. It concerns the provision of an advance factory at Kilwinning Industrial Estate in my constituency. Ever since I was returned to this House in 1950 I have been asking the Government, by means of Questions and in speeches, to complete the development of this industrial estate. Nearly £100,000 was spent in providing this industrial estate, but still only one factory has been built upon it—an advance factory which has since been occupied.
The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that the Secretary of State for Scotland made a statement in the House on Scottish economy, on 11th July, 1962, about the building of certain advance factories in Scotland. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to take note of what happened subsequently. In a Press notice, dated 26th July, 1962, the President of the Board of Trade mentioned the areas in which each factory would be built. The Press statement mentioned that in Scotland further advance factories would be built as follows: in Lanarkshire, at Whitburn; in the Larkhall-Lesmahagow-Douglas area; in Central West Fife; in Central Ayrshire; in the Sanquhar-Kirkconnel area, and in Stranraer.
This statement raised great hopes in my constituency, especially among certain local authorities who had got together to press the necessity for building advance factories and taking other measures to relieve unemployment in the area. The statement boosted the feelings of the hard-hit unemployed in the area

around Kilwinning. During the Summer Recess, however, I began to hear persistent rumours that an advance factory was not going to be built in Central Ayrshire but would, instead, be built in the area of Cumnock, in South Ayrshire.
I am not opposed to South Ayrshire's having an advance factory. There will be some pit closures in that area in the future, and it will obviously need more than one advance factory. But the present high rate of unemployment in my constituency necessitates the fulfilment of the announcement made by the President of the Board of Trade that a factory would be built in Central Ayrshire.
As a result of these rumours I wrote to the President of the Board of Trade, on 28th September, 1962, saying:
Dear President, Arising from the Secretary of State for Scotland's statement referring to building advance factories in Scotland and the subsequent information from your Department, widely circulated in the Scottish and local Press that one of these factories would be located in central Ayrshire where we have a Government Industrial Estate with only one factory.
There are persistent rumours that there are now doubts about one of the above factories being built in Central Ayrshire constituency and that it may be built elsewhere. I would be most grateful if I could have your assurance that the factory promised in Central Ayrshire will still be built.
On 15th October I received a letter signed by the President:
Dear Manuel, you wrote to me on 28th September about the advance factory which we are proposing to build in Central Ayrshire. I can assure you that we have not changed our minds and we are in fact negotiating with the owner of the land which we believe to be suitable.
This state of affairs seems to arise because an English Minister is dabbling with Scottish problems. Obviously, he does not know the locus, because he said he was negotiating for a site in Central Ayrshire where already we have an industrial estate where there is only one factory. I was immediately suspicious and so deliberately I did not give the contents of my letter and the reply I had received to the local Press. I did not wish to raise hope among the unemployed in the area that we might be getting a factory, even though the President had said in the Press statement of 26th July that we were getting one.
The position was further complicated by a reply on 9th November to a Written


Parliamentary Question by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who asked:
… the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he had for erecting factories in South Ayrshire in the areas where increased unemployment is likely as a result of pit closures.
The Answer by the President of the Board of Trade was:
I announced on 26th July that an advance factory would be built in Ayrshire. A suitable site has been found in the area of Cumnock and New Cumnock, and I hope that negotiations for its purchase will shortly be concluded."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1962; Vol. 666, c. 111–12.]
In the statement of 26th July the President did not say "in Ayrshire". He said "in Central Ayrshire". That is the point we wish to clear up.
On 15th November in reply to a supplementary question from my hon. Friend the Member for. Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), which arose out of Question No. 55 dealing with advance factory building in Scotland and in north-east England, we got a slightly different story. My hon. Friend asked:
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the action he has taken for Scotland in no way matches the need? May I ask exactly what he proposes to do about unemployment in Ayrshire? If he has not already taken action, will he do so immediately, bearing in mind the additional tragic blow which came to Ayrshire recently, not only by the loss of life but also by the loss of over 1,000 men's jobs in the Barony colliery in Auchinleck?
The President of the Board of Trade replied:
I am not suggesting for a moment that the building of advance factories will solve the whole unemployment problem, but that it will make a contribution to doing so. As to Ayrshire, we announced in July that we were to put up a factory in Cumnock, in the south. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is for once notably silent during supplementary questions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1962; Vol. 667, c. 567.]
On 26th July the President of the Board of Trade did not state that the Board was to put up a factory at Cumnock in South Ayrshire. He said that an advance factory would be built in the area of Central Ayrshire and reiterated that in a letter to me on 15th October.
I stress to the Parliamentary Secretary the need for development at Kilwinning Industrial Estate. We are ask-

ing the President of the Board of Trade to carry out his promise to build one advance factory at Kilwinning. There is an urgent need in the Kilwinning area. It is the centre of an area of heavy unemployment. In the area Irvine to Ardrossan there is an unemployment figure of 6.5 per cent. It may be a little more now; that is the latest figure I was able to obtain. On the other side, only a few miles away, there are the towns of Dalry and Kilbirnie with an unemployment figure of 8·5 per cent., plus much short-time working not embodied in that 8·5 per cent. The Ayrshire unemployment figure is around 6,000, excluding disabled persons and it embodies nearly 500 young people under 18.
Kilwinning is the centre of this unemployment area. We have been promised a factory. Let the President of the Board of Trade honour his promise. There can be no backing out now. I want him to do something to restore confidence and to sweep away some of the misunderstanding that has been created because of these persistent rumours. Let him honour his promise in his letter to me and in the Press statement he made and end this chapter of errors which has created great despondency in my constituency.

10.32 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): In attempting to reply to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) I should make it clear that I am not as unfamiliar with the County of Ayrshire as he seems to think. I spent four and a half years at school at Alloway.

Mr. Manuel: I said that the mistake had arisen because we had English Ministers—I do not think the hon. Gentleman is in that category—who did not know the locus.

Mr. Price: We shall go into that. Later in my industrial life my duties took me to Ardeer, which is not all that far from Kilwinning. So I can assure the hon. Member—in spite of his rather superficial anger—that I do not view the affairs of Kilwinning entirely through the eyes of Whitehall. The hon. Member has deployed his argument with that forcefulness that the House has come to expect of him. Equally as a man of


character the hon. Member will not I am sure take it amiss if I am guided in my reply by some advice from the Ayrshire bard:
Don't let the awkward squad fire over me".
I do not intend to let the awkward squad fire over me tonight.

Mr. Manuel: Keep to the facts.

Mr. Price: The hon. Member will get more facts than he bargained for. I should like to begin by acknowledging that a great deal of public money was spent after the war in clearing the Kilwinning Industrial Estate and that to date much of this expenditure has not borne fruit. I should like, however, briefly to put this in historical perspective. The hon. Member will know that the 28 acres which now constitute the Kilwinning estate were acquired as long ago as 1946 and more than £80,000 was spent on clearing land, building roads and preparing sites for factory building. Nevertheless, by 1951, only one factory covering 34,000 sq ft. of floor space had been built. The factory was, in fact, built in 1949. A 25,000 sq. ft. extension has just been completed, but, over the years, there has been no other development.
The fact that so little was done at Kilwinning in the late 1940s and early 1950s was to some extent a reflection of the relative prosperity of the area at that time. The employment position was worse in places like Lanarkshire and less attention was at the time given to Kilwinning. Then came the restrictions on Government expenditure on factory building, and there was room in the programme only for the most important and immediate development. However, determined efforts were made to sell part or all of the remaining land at Kilwinning estate for private industrial development.
In view of the employment position, which had recently deteriorated, Kilwinning, which was still in a development area, was made eligible for financial assistance, through the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee, under the Distribution of Industry Act, 1958. The following year, unemployment in what is now the Ardrossan group of development districts—that is, Ardrossan, Stevenston, Irvine and Kilwinning—rose to 9 per cent. The area was, therefore, listed for assistance under

the Local Employment Act, 1960, as being a place where a high rate of unemployment existed and was likely to persist.
I come now to the present employment situation. I think that I can give the hon. Member the current figures. The amount of assistance which has been given to the area under the present Act is substantial, and the Government need not feel in any way ashamed of what they have done to increase employment opportunities there. The number of wholly unemployed fell from 1,842 in October, 1959, to 1,440 in October, 1961. Since then, however, there has been an increase to 1,673. But though the present position is by no means one we can be happy about, it is still better than it was three years ago.

Mr. Manuel: That is excluding Dairy and Kilbirnie.

Mr. Price: We are dealing with the Ardrossan area. I am sorry that we cannot break these figures down, but we have to take them from the local employment exchange area from which they are returned.
Moreover, with this total the figure of male unemployment has fallen much more sharply from 1,178 in 1959 to 754 in 1961. Today, it has risen to 909, but it is still below the 1959 figure.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Still far too many.

Mr. Price: It is the employment of the breadwinner which counts most, as I am sure hon. Members will agree. This is not to say that a percentage of 6.4 wholly unemployed is one which we can regard with equanimity. Far from it. But what really matters is whether the present high level of unemployment is likely to persist.
To date, more than £600,000, including the cost of the 25,000 sq. ft. factory extension on the Kilwinning estate, has been offered by way of assistance under the 1960 Act to firms in the Ardrossan group.

Mr. Manuel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Price: I have a lot to say. I am trying to answer the hon. Gentleman.
This is the result of the efforts made by the Board of Trade—

Mr. Manuel: Will the hon Gentleman deal with the Press statement of 26th July?

Mr. Price: I am coming to that.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman is sticking to his brief.

Mr. Price: We are doing this quite logically. I thought that Scotsmen liked logic.
This has been the result of the efforts made by the Board of Trade and the local authorities to introduce new industry into the area. It is estimated that this assistance will provide approximately 700 new jobs within the next three years, and a total of approximately 900 within the next five years.

Mr. Manuel: Where?

Mr. Price: Other developments within the area should provide another 400 jobs, making a total of about 1,300 jobs in the next five years. Within this total there should be nearly as many male jobs as there are at present male unemployed. In addition, four applications for financial assistance to firms in the area are under consideration, and a further three preliminary applications for small amounts have been received.
On the debit side—that is, the possible reduction of existing employment opportunities—I am glad to say that the outlook seems reasonably good. The level of unemployment has increased very little since the early parts of the year. The area has, therefore, done rather better than some other parts of the country. Moreover, as far as we know, there is no threat of large-scale redundancies in local industry.

Mr. Manuel: That is all wrong.

Mr. William Ross: Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock) rose——

Mr. Price: I have much to say. I cannot give way. The position in the small coal mining industry is reasonably steady——

Mr. Manuel: Really.

Mr. Price: —the dockyard is engaged on Admiralty repair work and——

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. I must object to the House being terribly misled because the Parliamentary Secre-

tary is dealing with only a part of the area and not the whole of it.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. What the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) says is not a point of order.

Mr. Ross: Mr. Ross rose——

Mr. Price: As I was saying—and I was talking about possible redundancies —the position in the small coal mining industry is reasonably steady, the dockyard is engaged on Admiralty repair work and no great change is foreseen in the chemical industry.

Mr. Manuel: Be fair.

Mr. Price: I am trying to answer the hon. Member. The conclusion must be that, while the problems of the area are not going to be solved overnight, there are good grounds for believing that the measures which have been taken will bring about a substantial improvement in the position in the not too distant future.

Mr. Ross: Mr. Ross rose——

Mr. Price: No. I will not give way. This account shows that the Board of Trade has not been lacking in diligence in introducing new industry to this part of Scotland.

Mr. Manuel: Deal with the whole area.

Mr. Price: The spotlight must now be moved elsewhere. This is not just a question of £ s. d. The Board of Trade is constantly looking for opportunities of providing new jobs in Scotland and there is practically no limit, within the bounds of commercial prudence, to expenditure for this purpose.
The problem of Kilwinning must also be looked at in the light of the situation elsewhere in Scotland and the rest of Great Britain. The Government have had considerable success in attracting new industries to Scotland in recent years and encouraging expansion in the "growth industries" there, but the rate of decline in the older industries, particularly coal mining——

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Price: I have a considerable amount to say. I will not give way—has cancelled out much of the gain in jobs provided. Moreover, the number of applications for industrial development certificates has been running at a much lower level recently and, as a consequence, the number of firms which can be persuaded to look for new factory space in development districts has fallen off considerably.

Mr. Manuel: This is disgusting. Why will not the hon. Gentleman discuss the matter as a whole?

Mr. Ross: Mr. Ross rose——

Mr. Price: All this has had two effects. Firstly, it has increased the need to direct the attention of firms which have expressed a willingness to move to those areas in which help is most needed and, secondly, it has led the Board to reconsider the position with regard to the building of factories in advance of demand. Experience has shown that most firms like to have a factory built to meet their own requirements, to enable them to fit the production lines between the existing roof supports without excessive waste or too great a constriction of space. When the demand for factory space was as much as could be met from the existing financial resources, the Board was, naturally, reluctant to build factories in advance of demand except as a special inducement to firms to go to remote areas which would otherwise be unlikely to attract industry.

Mr. Ross: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give way? This is most important.

Mr. Price: No.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Price: I must get on. In present circumstances, when new private investment in factory building is at a low ebb, the Government have thought it right to build a number of advance factories as a measure of assistance to places with the most persistent unemployment problems. In July the President of the Board of Trade announced that nine advance factories—including six in Scotland—would be built in more or less remote places likely to be affected by colliery closures and other special factors. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire made

a great deal of play about my right hon. Friend's statement in those announcements. I actually have that statement with me. He referred to Central Ayrshire but not to the constituency of Central Ayrshire.

Mr. Manuel: I wrote to him about it.

Mr. Price: It is geographically Central Ayrshire and the hon. Member knows that.

Mr. Manuel: What?

Mr. Price: That it is a matter of nomenclature and that his constituency represents very largely North Ayrshire.

Mr. Manuel: As I said, the hon. Member does not know the area.

Mr. Ross: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give way?

Mr. Price: No.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will use the remaining few minutes of this Adjournment debate in an orderly fashion.

Mr. Manuel: On this question of Central Ayrshire, will the Parliamentary Secretary give way?

Mr. Price: No. As I was saying, it is geographically in Central Ayrshire.

Mr. Ross: No.

Mr. Price: I do not intend to give a speech on geography but if hon. Members opposite will look at the map they will come to the same conclusion as I have.
Regarding the choice of locations, I was going to speak about the second round of advance factories. My right hon. Friend said on 8th November that four were in Scotland. The choice of location for the four was difficult and my right hon. Friend has said in the House that he recognises that there are other areas in Great Britain which are just as deserving as those selected. The claims of Kilwinning were very seriously considered. The Board of Trade would be only too pleased to take advantage of a good opportunity to develop the estate, but after detailed examination of present and future prospects it was decided to put the factories elsewhere.
The limit on the number of factories is not financial. Advance factories are an exceptional form of assistance which would lose its value if used too much. If we build too many we shall have difficulty in letting them all. In this connection it should be borne in mind that under the programme announced this year the President of the Board of Trade has authorised the building of no less than 19 advance factories, 11 of which are in Scotland. In addition, the Board of Trade has 18 factories, totalling over half a million square feet, which are either empty or expected to become available for reletting shortly. Thirteen of these, totalling more than 300,000 square feet, are in Scotland. The Board expects to let all these factories in due course, but there is a risk that some of them will remain vacant for a considerable time, and it would be irresponsible of the Government to agree to put up an advance factory in every locality suffering from high unemployment.
This does not mean that the claims of Kilwinning for assistance under the Local Employment Act will be ignored. The Board of Trade has given substantial financial asisstance to firms in the area and will continue to show the sites on the Kilwinning Industrial Estate to firms which are willing to go there and are interested in having a factory built by the Board of Trade to their own requirements. Since 1st April, 1960, we have recommended the site to 13 firms and six have actually visited it. None so far has shown an interest in going there. We should also be wiling to sell land on the estate to firms who want to build for themselves.
Clearly the prospects for Kilwinning cannot be viewed in isolation. They are

intimately associated with the prospects for the area as a whole, about which I have already spoken. With this in mind I should like to take this opportunity on behalf of my right hon. Friend of welcoming the recently formed North Ayrshire Joint Committee for Industrial Development. Joint action of this nature is more likely, in our opinion, to be productive of results than separate action by individual local authorities.
1 would say to the hon. Member, in conclusion, that I do not take as gloomy a view as he does about the long-term prospects for the area.

Mr. Manuel: I never mentioned the long-term aspect.

Mr. Price: The task of raising the growth potential of the North Ayrshire economy requires for success a joint and continuing effort of Government, local authorities, industry, trade unions and public opinion not only in Kilwinning but over the whole field.

Mr. Ross: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in his present position when the first announcement was made and therefore he does not know much about it. He is just about as ignorant as he is arrogant as far as Ayrshire is concerned. The time he spent at school there was spent in the kindergarten. His arrogance came later, not from Ayrshire.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eleven minutes to Eleven o'clock.